With the Media proclaimed National Primary (Though how national can it be if most of the states aren't even voting today, I fear the media can't count) going down, I thought I ponder a few alternate primary solutions. First of all I believe the current primacy of New Hampshire and Iowa to be unfair and unearned. These states are small, rural and not very representative of the nation as a whole, but through accidents of history have become overly important.
Primary Options
- National Primary: This is rather self explanatory, every in the country votes on the same day, not only the 22 and half special states of Super Tuesday. This seems to be fair since ideally we'd be back in the relm of one man one vote. However,The states will no longer have any choice in when and how to conduct their delegate selections and would also make it difficult for all but the best funded candidates to compete.
- Delaware plan divides the states into four groups voting a month apart starting in March. Membership in the groups would be determined by the number of delegates a state would appoint with the smallest states voting in the first group and the largest states voting last. Theoretically this would still allow small states to have a say and potentially allow more variety of candidates. This plan is probably best for small states, since the media will get really worked up about the happenings in whatever states vote first. I think this is a decent plan, but it still has the potential to force all but one contender to quite before the big states. Also, since the small states tend to be pretty spread out, this adds to campain costs and travel times. This plan was rejected by the Republican Party in 2000.
- California/American plan: Similar to the Delaware plan except there would be 10. Again it would arrange things so it moves from smaller states to larger states. The oddity is that there are different numbers of states in each group and it seems that it has been gamed to keep Iowa and New Hampshire to be the entirety of the first group. FairVote.org explains, "In the first interval, states with a
combined total of eight congressional districts would hold their
primaries, caucuses, or conventions. This is approximately equal to the
total number of congressional districts in Iowa (5) and New Hampshire
(2)". Later they grow the allowed number of districts that would solidify a round, but to me it seems like and orderly but just as arbitrary version of the current system. The primacy of Iawa and New Hampshire's a deal killer for me but the ops-Alaska version doesn't seem to have this pitfall and even a large state such as Ohio could potentially vote in the third round. This is an interesting plan, but the determination of state order seams more complex than it ought to be.
- Regional Primary: Divide the country into four geographical regions and randomize the order so no region is first or last in one or another election. This is nice and simple, but it shares the drawback of the Deleware plan that it might make it to difficult to mount a campaign across that many states. such larg regions. The Wikipedia version also keep Iowa and New Hampshire first which is exceeding lame. Some regions tend to lean ideologically "right or "left" and this could effect the types of candidates that might be chosen if that region goes first which is why there's an alternate plan that splits up the south and North east to balance the region ideologically. I wonder if just subdividing this into 8-10 regions if this wouldn't a simpler and less complicated version of the America Plan. Then candidates could concentrate on a geographic area which would save on costs and no one set of states would always have undo influence.
- I'm not particully satisfied with any of these plans, perhapse something more sane will work it self out in the next election. I can only hope, just as I vainly hope that there will still be a point in showing up to vote on Ohio's "late" March 5 primary.
