Reforming The Primary Calendar

The system by which we choose our presidential candidates obviously is 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. This would provide for a more effective and equitable system than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

- States would be placed in order according to each state's margin of victory from the preceding general election.

For example, John Kerry won Wisconsin by 0.3% and George W. Bush won Iowa by 0.9%; conversely, Kerry won Massachusetts with 62%, and Bush won Utah with approximately 70%. Therefore, the Primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Wisconsin and Iowa -- and would close with such states as Massachusetts and Utah.

- 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 demonstrates an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to Wisconsin and New Mexico 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 on 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.

- As we've recently seen in the case of Michigan and Florida, just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will not prove invaluable to the process. Pennsylvania won't be until April 22nd this year but could very well decide 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, Wisconsin and New Mexico would have been two of the states to get the limelight in 2008, followed soon thereafter by Ohio and Pennsylvania. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2008, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2012. 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 New Mexico.

- Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. 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.

- 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 and last groupings.

Under these proposed guidelines, the calendar for the 2008 primaries would have been:

January 2008

Tue, 1/8

Wisconsin
Iowa
New Mexico
New Hampshire
Ohio

Tue, 1/22

Pennsylvania
Nevada
Michigan
Minnesota
Oregon

Tue, 2/5

Colorado
Florida
New Jersey
Missouri
Washington

Tue, 2/12

Delaware
Virginia
Hawaii
Maine
California

Tue, 2/26

Connecticut
Illinois
Arizona
Arkansas
North Carolina

Tue, 3/11

West Virginia
Maryland
District of Columbia
Tennessee
Louisiana
Georgia

Tue, 3/25

South Carolina
New York
Mississippi
Kentucky
Vermont

Tue, 4/8

Montana
Indiana
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Texas

Tue, 4/22

Massachusetts
Kansas
Alaska
Alabama
North Dakota

Tue, 5/6

Oklahoma
Nebraska
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah

by Will Bower
(with contributions by Mike Shaffer)

Comments

[trysty29]

I like this idea, except for one thing. The parties will be counting on those states that come last, as it will be a foregone conclusion which way they will go. This will substantially lessen the amount of time we have to get to know the candidates and vet them. I can see a problem that things might pop up after it is too late that we didn't know about. I have an idea. Why not take the total number of delagates, divide them by 4. Make four groups of states as close to that number as possible. One primary a month, with a rotation in place, that who goes first, goes last next time. The others move up one place. The first time the places should be decided by lot. I think this would be a fairer way.

[WillBower]

Trysty. I would contend that the best way to vet the candidates is to run them through those Swing States -first-. By running a Republican candidate through Utah first and/or a Democratic Candidate through Rhode Island, the rest of the nation will not be given a clear view as to whom by best represent -them- in November.

I would also contend that I do in fact have a built-in rotation of sorts. Should Wisconsin swing more-decidedly one way or the other in 2008, it will move down on the calendar in 2012. Should Utah be less partisan in 2008, it will move -up- on the calendar in 2012. A benefit to this system will be that it will encourage the people of the more partisan states to give greater consideration to the other party before casting their votes in November.

[WillBower]

Make that: "...as to whom *will* best represent -them- in November.

[dannyS]

Most people stay within their party, even in a primary.
So I don't think the primary is meant to emphasize the margin between the 2 parties, but is supposed to let each party pick a candidate.
I think the margin in a primary would be similar to the margin of the last election.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

I -think- I understand what you're addressing, Danny.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I'd say this. In the general election -- whether it's a great thing or not -- most of the campaigns' attention and finances are directed towards those "swing", "moderate", "independe­nt-minded" states. By placing these same states towards the front of the Primary calendar, the campaigns will not have to wait until the general election to address the concerns of those same voters... which means they won't have to sell themselves with one message to the voters of South Carolina, only to months later sell themselves differently to the voters of New Mexico.

I agree with you that Republicans mostly will stay Republican and that Democrats mostly will stay Democratic -- but by addressing those same "swing", "moderate", and "independe­nt-minded" voters early on, the parties can shape themselves to address those voters that they will ultimately want to address in November.

[dannyS]

isn't it riskier to try to attract swing voters than to go for the base?

[djccq]

The single most important factor that must be changed in our ridiculous primary system is the open primary. Too many voters in this country have no clue as to the difference between primaries and general elections. I know this because I live in an open primary state. Since a primary is only a NOMINATION process, only those registered in a party should be allowed to vote in that party's primary. I'd bet that most "Independent" voters or those who piously intone "I vote for the man, (yes, they're dumb enough to think MAN) not the party!" could not tell you the names of their Representatives or Senators. I would allow party registration until two weeks before the primary. As for New Hampshire and/or Iowa, don't get me started.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree with you, DJ. My thought? What's the point of being a Republican or a Democrat when the most important thing you do as a member of your party -- namely choose your candidate -- can be decided by -anyone-?

[toomuchtolose]

Something has to be done to allow California, the State with the greatest population, to have some say in the process early on. Why should those of us who live in California be given 2 names when some tiny little state like New Hampshire gets the whole slate to choose from?

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

I believe, TMTL, that my proposal would give California as fair a shot as most of the other states in ultimately landing earlier in the election calendar, so that it too could have the kind of voice you're describing. For example, in my scenario above, the rather populous Ohio gets to be in the first grouping this time 'round.

[ViejitaDelOeste]

OK, I live in New Mexico, so presumably my state would benefit from your scheme, at least initially. The problem is, by having contests so spread out geographically we would wind up relying on TV ads and media coverage, therefore making the the process even more dependent on money (if such a thing is possible). I have also lived in Iowa during a primary season, and the early states actually have a bigger field and less information available.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

Viejita.

Iowa and New Hampshire aren't very close to one another either, yet candidates usually spend the beginning of their campaigns crisscrossing between the two states.

The only alternative is to have primaries ordered by geography. I just can't see us taking on a system built on favoring one region over another.

[Janskats]

Much of this plan is sensible. I say that, given that, several weeks ago, I had submitted this suggestion to the DNC..that the primaries be determined by dividing the states into groups of approximately five states, composed of two large and three small states (determined by registered Dem voters or delegates or whatever. The elections would be spread out over 3 week periods, allowing adequate time for campaigning in all states by the candidates. Slots for each period would be determined by simple lottery, allowing the first state to select whichever group it wishes to join. Why do we need this complicated formula, based on prior wins..it may be irrelevant, given the vast discrepancy evidenced by the heavily increased number of voters out there, this year? Once the order has been determined (including protectorates and groups such as Americans Abroad), the list would rotate, perhaps jumping 3-5 spaces each election cycle. This way, sooner or later, everyone would get a "first" position eventually. Furthermore..NO SUPERDELEGATES!! This is the most patronizing, undemocratic concept ever imagined this side of facism!

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

Not to be contrary, Jankats, but I would suggest that my proposal is actually -less- complicated than is yours. The lotteries you propose are exactly that -- Lotteries. There's too much at stake to gamble. Margin-of-Victory percentages, on the other hand, are easy to calculate and easy to understand.

You are correct that there can (and will) be changes to the political landscape over each four-year term. However, there is still a slower, stronger undercurrent of history... for which 4 years, 8 year, 12 years, etc., isn't much at all.

[EngineerBill]

Before we have wave after wave of state primaries, We need to have a series of regional caucuses. Iowa gives the system what is known as retail politics. We need to expand this concept over other parts of the country. I propose ten randomly chosen "chunks" of areas representing a particular region of the country. These ten "chunks" would be the first to have caucuses. Since I am from southern Calif. one such "chunk" could be the L.A/Orange county region for example. After these ten areas have caucused over the months of January and February. a set of "finalists" of no more than 4 candidates would emerge. Then, we could have regional "Super Tuesdays" to pick the nominee.
One more thing. These ten areas would change every four years, giving all areas a chance at being what i would call "The Retail Ten".

[dhorowitz]

I think it's an innovative idea that will solve a lot of the problems we're experiencing with our current primary scheduling system.

One question that came up for me while I was reading through it:

Arguments opposing making any changes to the status quo would likely come from participants in the process who want to claim that their State "needs" to be first because it is one of the most important/­largest/ha­s the most delegates, etc. You address well why that needs to change, but you haven't talked about the impact of all this on election costs.

By leaving the States with the widest general election margins until the end, this will indeed displace some of the historically important States to the end, and that increases the need for campaign advertising spending, all throughout the long calendar. In the past, that spending might have been curtailed towards the end in the "minor" States.

In an environment of out-of-control campaign spending -- and idle promises by candidates to do something about that -- how would you address the fact that your proposal ensures big spending all the way through, despite the rotation component?

[WillBower]

Hey there, DH. In the above simulation -- as I see it -- the primary example of a late-but-important state would be Massachusetts... in the 9th wave of Primaries.

In this case, Massachusetts only comes to late in the calendar because *John Kerry* was on the ticket in 2000.

Moving further up the list, it would be Texas in the 8th wave... but that, too, is a biased result based on Bush's presence on the ticket in 2004.

Which brings us to New York and to South Carolina, both in the 7th wave of Primaries.

As I see it, a March 25th Primary in either New York or South Carolina would still place those states ahead of the position in which Pennsylvania now finds itself... and we now know that that is a position of significant importance.

Might you be able to explain your argument by using a March 25th / New York / South Carolina scenario? I'm very interested and want to better understand your concerns.

[WillBower]

Shoot. I made a wrote a nice lengthy reply to this, DH, and it's not here!

I've gotta get to bed, so I'll just paraphrase:

What would be the problem with, say, a March 25th / New York / South Carolina scenario?

Given your concerns, the 7th wave of Primaries in my proposal seems to provide the best example of a "late-yet-important state" scenario like the one you mention. (...not including the Bush/Kerry states of Texas/Mass­achusetts)­.

I'm very interested but want to better understand.

[seejake]

I think a practical way to reform the process is by changing the order of which states go first every primary cycle, but don't announce that order until November 4 of the year before the general election. but there's no way the states would buy into that.

[monkette]

No -- this is terrible.

The only truly workable solution is to have one national primary day, so that people in every state get to vote for their candidate, not have them drop out beforehand.

Also, there should be a deadline of, say -- no earlier than 3 (ok, maybe 6) months prior to the primary, can a candidate announce their candidacy. Only enough time for them to actively campaign without the election going on so long that it devolves into the absolute farce we've got going on now.

Finally, there should only be a 3-6 month gap between the primary and the actual election. Again, to cut down the time the candidates have to go out their and start spewing garbage instead of actually talking on the issues.

[seejake]

this sounds pretty good to me. if voters could rank their votes, that could also work so that it is less likely that there'd be a stalemate (or 8 candidates with less than 20% of the vote). the two candidates closest to 50% should then be in a run-off vote.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

Monkette. By focusing on states closest to the Electoral Divide, the chances of choosing nationally­-appealing candidates is enhanced, so that we don't -have- to have a National Primary.

As appealing at a National Primary may seem to be, it would the country too little time to get to know and choose their candidates.

And as for the 3-6 month gap you mention, I agree. The last grouping in my proposal would vote in early May... giving the nominees a full 6 months to campaign.

[campaignman]

Bower's idea and these other ideas are meaningless as long as states want to set their own agenda. Bower and others on this site seem to feel that if the DNC orders it, it will be done.


As we all can see from the way Michigan and Florida decided to go off the reservation, getting all the places that vote into line with any of these plans would not be easy.


Iowa and New Hampshire have a long history of going first. The DNC tried to address the concerns about having a more diverse electorate participate early. South Carolina and Nevada were moved up. The result, few in Nevada paid attention to the race until the last minute and there was chaos at the caucuses caused by complicated rules. Further, in South Carolina, due to the heavy African American vote, Bill Clinton tried to write off the results entirely. He essentially claimed that the overwhelming vote in South Carolina was entirely due to Barack's race. It was disgusting.


I digress. That still makes me mad.


Anyway, Michigan and Florida tried to sneak their votes into January to have a special impact on the race and created all the trouble we have now regarding them.


In my view, if you could re-work the system, the answer would be to start by switching Iowa and all other caucuses to primaries. Some might have to be mail-in primaries where the cost of a real primary would be prohibitive. Further, I would install a voting system in every state that would allow voters to list the candidates in order of preference. No candidate would get delegates though unless they exceeded 15% of the vote.


If a voter's first choice were disallowed due to the 15% rule, that voter's second choice would then become that voter's first choice. All results would be made public, even those rounds where a candidate did not achieve 15% so voters in other states would see what level of support was garnered by the failed candidates.


Finally, while I would leave Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina in place, as it took tons of negotiating to create that order, I would place groups of three-to-five contiguous states (chosen to reduce media travel and costs) at a time on a bi-weekly basis after that and choose the order based upon the previous percentage of voter turnout. Thus, if DC, MD and VA had an 80% turnout of Dems in this year, and that was the best turnout of any three-to-five state group, then that group should get to choose the week it wants to be on the calendar. Moreover, the state with the best turnout in that group would get to choose the date for all of them.


In this way, we would encourage voter turnout and we would have a way for people to express their real choice for President without costing them a vote for the person who they feel they should vote for if their vote is to really count.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

I think your Voter-Turnout idea is -- at first examination -- a good one.

However, I still have to take exception to it. The reasons for high or low turnout in any given state might have little or nothing to do with the national election that year. For example, a state might have a particularly inspiring (or a particularly loathsome) gubernatorial candidate on the ticket.

As for switching caucuses to primaries... and voting preferentially... I'm totally on board with you... and think that there is plenty of room for those things in my proposal.

I must disagree though with keeping NH, IA, SC, and NV as is. Again, this proposal is all about giving any number of states the chance to be the 'stars'.

As for enforcement... Yes, there may still be rogue states. However, I think that if the calendar is based on a rational plan, defection is less likely. States will understand -why- they are positioned where they are... and teach state will have 4 other states in the same boat. Also, as we now see with Pennsylvania, states might better understand that being in, say, the 8th grouping could ultimately be the -best- place to be.

[cjo30080]

At first blush...this proposal looks like one that deserves serious consideration. My only suggestion would be to hold the elections on Saturdays instead of Tuesdays to encourage more participation -- especially among the working class.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

Agreed. Saturdays would be fine by me.

[atp2007]

Interesting, but I would switch Ohio and Minnesota. This way a candidate can campaign in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa without having to do a lot of long distance flying. That woud leave just New Hampshire and New Mexico for long distance hauls. With 3 bordering states the ads will cover more people and hopefully they can spend less.
That would move Ohio to the week with Pennsylvania, also bordering states, which would have the same advantages.
The only problem with having so many states so early is that it does not give the candidates the time to really work one state and define their campaign and message. That long haul in one state made it clear that Obama was a force to be recognized with a good organization and that Hillary had problems. I'm not sure if that could have been known so early if there had been so many contests right away that they had to spread their time between. Starting with the small states and working up gives them a chance to start "off-Broadway" and tune their performances before the production hits the big time (besides the fact that these smaller states have big electoral vote impact).

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

Again, I do agree that the proposal I've put forth -could- be altered in away to flow 3,3,4,4,5,­5,6,6,7,7.­.. which does have a nice harmonic of it's own. That said, I wouldn't want the first grouping to be any fewer than 3 states (in this case, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico), else too much emphasis would be given to a singe state... which is what this proposal is trying to avoid.

And, again, transportation is a factor, but I still believe the geographical diversity trumps that particular issue.

[1849]

Would it be unfair to hold lottery at the beginning of primary/caucus season for the following season? This provides each state a chance at going first or being last. This method will sometimes yield clusters of states in the same region and sometimes states that are dissimiliar by region and demographic make up.

or

To shorten the season, I would choose one week wherein every state participates in a primary or caucus to even out the playing field. I would do each day of the week by region. During the weekend before said primaries or caucuses, hold a lottery to decide which region will start the next cycle the following year

For example:
New England Monday
Mid-Altantic (with Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) Tuesday
South- Wednesday
Midwest Thursday
Mountain West-Friday
Pacifc Rim and Southwest -Saturday

a lottery (on a Sunday before the upcoming contest) will be held to determine which region leads off next season. all overseas ballots are do by the time the last region ends its' process

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

Again, randomization just seems too haphazard for my liking. By running different scenarios, almost -any- candidate could come out on top, depending. For example, had a string of Huckabee or Edwards states gone first, who -knows- how things would have turned out. Yes, there may be an argument -for- that very thing, but I prefer that we tried to pick our candidates in as rational a way as we're able.

[Sciguy]

Howzabout a randomization of the states, combined with primary groupings similar to what sk7326 suggested? This would allow small and large states to have a voice, as well as early and late states. Putting all small states first gives them disproportionately too much say, but putting large states first gives almost all of the electoral votes out before small states can have a say.

I'd suggest that randomization is better than regional, since regions tend to be more conservative or more liberal, and that would give conservatives or liberals a disproportionately large voice. I'd also suggest that randomization is better than margin of victory, for the same reason.

NH and Iowa can stop being first - even the Cincinnati Reds don't get to have the first game every year any more.

So why not have 10 groups of 5 states each (or 5 groups of 10 states each, or something like that)? The first 10 states go from Alabama through Georgia, and includes north and south, east and west, large and small. The whole thing would be over more quickly, but not so quickly that pundits would be unemployed for very long...

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

The thought of randomization -- of throwing dice, as it were -- is one that just makes me too nervous.

I do think the groupings as they would have stood this years are rather diverse. In group one we have New England, Great Lakes, Midwest, West, and West. He have states with rather small populations and one with a large population. And even in this first grouping of five, we have examples of caucuses, closed primaries, and open primaries. The one region that appears to be absent in this scenario is the South. But with states such as Missouri, Louisiana, and Virginia swinging back into a more moderate column, that too could change by the time we get to 2012.