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
Not only are we irrelevant in the general election, now you want to make us irrelevant in the primary as well?
If you put all of the battleground states first, even if it’s just the Democratic electorate, you’re going to end up with very moderate (or possibly, Blue-Dog, shudder!) Dem nominees and presidents. I don’t want dems in MO and IN picking our candidate, we could end up with someone like Ellsworth or Donnelly.
The reason I support IA and NH going first is that you don’t have to raise a gazillion dollars to win there. It’s a rare case where retail politics exists, and you would lose that if five states went on the same day.
but I disagree with the premise. If California is one of the last to go it’s possible nobody even bothers to campaign there, primary or general. Seems unfair for the largest state to get no say at all in the presidency.
Of course, the current system is messed up, but penalizing safe states isn’t the answer. I’d rather see a regional schedule, such as on one day we have Vermont, Alabama, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oregon. Two weeks later, we have Connecticut, Tennessee, South Dakota, Arizona, and California. Two weeks later, Maine, South Carolina, Nebraska, Montana, Washington.
And every four years the states within each regional breakdown will shift.
why hello Will.
should be chosen with respect to the national margin of victory, not on the smallest margin of victory.
For example, states like Virginia and Colorado should be first, because Obama won these states by 6.25 and 8.95%, while he won nationally by 7.25%. They are much closer to the divide than is Missouri.
Candidates are not allowed to criticize other candidates upon penalty of stern lecture.
Candidates must present all other candidates with at least one present, preferably candy. Failure to do so will result in three laps around the Capitol building.
Larger states must not pick on the smaller states (I’m looking at you New York!)
Anybody who cites “electability” as a reason must, by use of a time machine and multiple realities, must prove that they would indeed do better in the election than their opponent.