Proposal For 2012 Primaries

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties -- starting in 2012 -- might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable -- at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan -- one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes -- and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

- The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates' margins of victory in the preceding general election -- with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina -- and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

- The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

- Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they'll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

- Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren't held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

- This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

- By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

- Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

- Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However -- should that not happen -- states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

- Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions -- the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

- All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

- Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

- Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state -- Virginia or Maryland -- is closer to its own margin of victory.

- American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad -- not having Electoral votes of their own -- will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri
North Carolina
Indiana
Florida
Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio
Georgia
Virginia
Colorado
South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota
Arizona
South Carolina
Iowa
New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Texas
Nevada
West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi
Wisconsin
New Jersey
New Mexico
Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas
Nebraska
Oregon
Kentucky
Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington
Maine
Louisiana
Arkansas
Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut
California
Illinois
Delaware
Maryland
Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska
Idaho
New York
Massachusetts
Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Vermont
Hawaii

Comments

[globescout]

Good work Will, as usual. If there is one recurring thought I've noticed in the comments, it's that we must get rid of caucuses if we are to seek integrity of voter representation.

[Goldentruth]

Will, excellent job. It is fair and rational but most importantly, caucuses must be eliminated and the winner of each state must get all the votes from that state. Dividing up a state and giving the loser a piece of the state's vote is, as we have seen all too well, a recipe for voter fraud and has put an end to democracy as we knew it. Keep up the good work.

[FrenchNail]

Your idea of grouping the states by packages of five and having primaries every other week makes total sense.

Nonetheless to preserve a good participation level, state cooperation and cost minimization, I believe the package should be composed of selected neighboring states and the scheduling should rotate or draw the packages every primary season. Yes it would open the possibility for a candidate to run on one side of the issue in one package and on the other side on the other, but it is also the only way, cooperation with GOP schedule can be achieved.

And note I talked about PRIMARIES, BECAUSE CAUCUSES HAVE TO BE ABOLISHED.

[WillBower]

Fortunately, FN, seven of these ten waves of voting will indeed contain regional aspects:

Pennsylvania / West Virginia

Mississippi / Tennessee

Kansas / Nebraska

Louisiana / Arkansas

Delaware / Maryland / DC

New York / Massachusetts / Rhode Island

Utah / Wyoming

[nervouswrecked]

Quite frankly you can't change anything without an ammendent to the constition, however if any change is made, it should be this....Frist verify all current voter registration for authenticity, then place a cut off on the next election on Novemeber 1, 2011 and verify these new voters ....then do away with the delegate votes....hold all the primaries on super Tuesday,....go with the popular vote...have the conventions....then do away with the electorial vote for the general election...and simply go with the popular vote..had this been done in the 2008 election, we would certainly have had a different out-come....!

[goGirlGO]

Far more important than the order in which states vote is the elimination of caucus voting. Caucuses preclude large portions of the population who are unable to attend caucuses, such as the elderly, those who work evening hours, etc., etc., from voting. Caucuses also provide ample opportunity for intimidation of would-be attendees, locking doors to keep out would-be attendees, telling would-be attendees that caucuses for their candidate are being held in other locations, and several other types of voter abuse.

[WillBower]

I very much agree with you, gGG... and I look forward to following the lead of such figures as Lynette Long on that issue.

However, I do think the calendar, too, is an issue that needs to be addressed... so that we can better avoid such debacles as MI and FL... and so that we don't over-empower such states as IA, NH, SC, and NV.

[FreeMeNow]

Will - great job - well thought out- Iowa and NH are going to have to get over it !

1-The caucus system must be addressed immediately and has to be ended.
2- Are you suggesting the schedule shown above change each 4 years based on the results of the previous election?
3- What about shortening the time and say putting 10 staes in each Tuesaday rather than 5 which may also reduce finacial expendatures? This years proves that is something that has to be readdressed.

[WillBower]

Thank you, FMN!

Indeed, I do believe caucuses must go.

And, yes, I am suggesting that the slate of states would be new each for years. If you read my first HuffPo article, you can see how the states would have been ordered in 2008. For example, the first 5 states would have been:

Wisconsin
Iowa
New Mexico
New Hampshire
Ohio

And, yes, based on how Election 2012 goes, a still different set of five will most likely be first up.

As for 10 states going every other Tuesday... I think that would be an acceptable alternative. Personally, however, I think 5 at a time gives each of those 5 states adequate attention... not too much... not too little... and the calendar season (ending the first Tuesday of May) would still be shorter to primary seasons past, which has often ended in June.

[NotYourCupcake]

Once again, my hat is off to you Will. Great idea to at least lump all caucus states together on the same day if they are not eliminated altogether. I think the most critical issue is getting rid of the caucuses since that is how the Democratic Party scammed the primary. How do we even get stared changing the election line-up?
Thanks Will, I'm with ya.

[MomMothma]

Excellent proposal! Very well thought out, too! You succinctly make your point, provide examples, and each claim is soundly based in logic. Who on earth could argue effectively against this? Are you sure you didn't go to law school? Ever thought about it? LOL!

So....who does this need to "get to"? Where do we push? Are we left, as one respondent suggested, with citizen lawsuits against state parties?

I do worry that the Pelosi/Reid/Dean/Brazile alliance will counter with the "but look - it worked!" justification, hmm?

The Force is truly strong with this one, yes!

[WillBower]

Thanks, Mothma!

I think the RNC might very well have an interest in considering this proposal, so please feel free to lobby them... as well as many a Third Party out there, as this proposal would be beneficial to them as well.

The DNC should have just as much interest in this, however, given that Obama will most likely be the 2012 candidate, the 2012 primaries will most likely be less of a concern for them.

[allhailmary]

Great plan. Now is the time to start to push this through.

[BalconesFalk]

The Texas Democratic Party Committee chaired by Senator Royce West on the Primary/Caucus is having a meeting this Friday, Nov 14, in Austin to hear testimony from the public. This is a chance to testify to the committee and tell them that we want an end to the Texas Two Step.

The meeting in Austin is this Friday at the AFL-CIO Building at 1106 Lavaca Street at 10 AM.

The current system is unfair because it dilutes the voting strength of people who vote in the primary but do not return for the caucuses. Many people can not attend caucuses because of reasons beyond their control, such as age or health, or having young children, or they may work or attend evening school, or they may be in the military and stationed overseas, as well as other reasons. If you know anyone who was not able to attend the caucuses, please try to get them to attend the hearing and tell their story to the committee.

The committee will be taking public testimony.

Scott Cobb attended meetings of the committee in Harlingen, El Paso, Arlington and Nacogdoches. Much testimony was from people who want the TDP to go to a system where all the pledged delgates are allocated based on the results of the popular vote in the primary while keeping the precinct conventions to choose the specific delegates and conduct party business, like voting on resolutions.

If you are in Austin, TX please attend the hearing.

[lorac1]

I like these ideas, Will. But yeah - we MUST get rid of caucuses if we want to eliminate fraud. And everyone should want to eliminate fraud.

[StopSexismNow]

Will, This is extremely well thought out and is very fair. I agree caucuses must be eliminated, but I believe it will likely only happen with the disenfranchised bring legal action against their state party organizations. Doubtful that will happen in every caucus state between now and 2012, but it will likely happen in at least some caucus states. Regardless, your proposal is definitely a major step in the right direction toward fixing some of the severe flaws that exist in our current system.