The current system of nominating a candidate for the presidency is in a state of disrepair. I have spent a good deal of time considering how this process would best be improved and what its goals should be.* The primary process stems from the early 20th century progressive movement to give people more power over their political parties. This laudable goal has been lost in a whirlwind of electioneering that leaves a large swath of the American public out in cold when it comes to selecting candidates. The preeminent status of New Hampshire and Iowa, the rush to join the Super Tuesday crowd, and the inequities between each state’s method of selecting a nominee have all played a role in distorting the process. These inconsistencies must be addressed if we are to have a nomination process that awards each citizen a voice that is more or less equal to every other citizen.
The first step in sorting out the current mess would be to create consistency amongst the states. There are many areas where a state-by-state approach is understandable and often laudable, but in selecting candidates for a national office a national standard should be expected. The differences between the states currently is both confusing and unfair, as there are open, semi-open, and closed primaries... let alone those damn caucuses. I personally favor a completely open primary process, but also realize there are a number of arguments for each method currently in use. The key here is to offer consistency among the states.
The current calendar offers the worst of both theories on how to best approach the nominating process. The argument for grassroots politics being an important kickoff is belittled by the fact that New Hampshire and Iowa are consistently given this role. The effect of this situation being is indeed grassroots politics, but only from a Hawkeye or Granite State perspective. The second, and I would argue bigger problem is the rash of primaries on Super Tuesday. We don’t get the advantage of having a national primary day, but we get enough of one to wield the remaining states essentially obsolete and to keep the moneyed candidates at the front of what is in effect a national advertising battle.
There has been discussion of a regional rotating schedule, which doesn’t sound completely bad given the current system. I, however, think that regional primaries may have some unappealing results in the form of limiting the candidate pool. For example, if the calendar were set to include a Northeast regional followed by a Far West regional – would a variety of candidates (e.g. Southern or Midwestern) not participate? I would argue that a balanced calendar with two or three states per week max from January through late May would be best. The order of the states would be assigned by the National parties through random drawing in October of the preceding year. Each state would be given equal weight in the drawing. All elections would be held on Saturday (this applies to all elections in America generally). I think that the randomness could help with keeping candidates from starting the campaign on the ground in states on the day after the previous election. I truly believe that this is one of the key problems with the current system, because at that early juncture the media only covers horserace issues – which we get plenty of later in the process.
Awarding delegates on a completely proportional method is alluring and I might just bite on it, if the calendar featured some randomness and was spread out far enough. Additionally, proportional votes should only be assigned if a certain threshold is met (12%?). I would also be supportive of a Nebraska/Maine model of primary nomination process, where by each state assigns its electors by congressional district and the statewide winner takes the two bonus electors. This method is not without problems, but would offer the opportunity for more grassroots politics on a variety of stages.
The overarching need for the primary process is consistency in access, the calendar, and in awarding delegates. Very few (if any) people fully understand the current system. A clearer method of selecting the nominees could offer citizens a chance to feel that their vote will count and that they are fully aware of how the system works. This method of smoothing the calendar over time, would also allow for significantly more grassroots campaigns to make a dent without having developing a war chest for the huge Super Tuesday ad push. There are undoubtedly other options available for cleaning up the nomination process, and I have no problem considering other options. The key is that we live up to the progressive tradition that established primaries in the first place and give the power to choose a party’s nominee back to the people... and not just the people in Des Moines.
* This post was inspired by Mel-Anon's thoughts on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I like these suggestions better than mine. My chief concern with the schedule you put forward is that it would drag on too long, exhausting the public and the candidates, and could be decided too early, which would leave a lot of time let for mopping up. I think a revised "slow ramping" schedule might be better, begin with 2-3 states for the first two weeks or so, then bring it up to 6,7,8 etc. and end with a Super Tuesday of the final 10 or so.
The ramping up idea had not crossed my mind, but would accommodate the major fear I had with this process (the too long critque you pointed out). I honestly just want to see something change, because the old way isn't working...
Post a Comment