Towards a new primary system (1 Viewer)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Why not run the primaries for seven consecutive weeks.  Each week a bundle of states representing roughly 560 delegates goes to the polls.  The bundles can be worked out but should, as much as possible, represent some geographic diversity, in fact the maximum that can be achieved.   Each election cycle the order rotates as to which bundle goes first, which second, and so on so that after seven election cycles each bundle has been in each weekly slot.

I know, the states set their own schedules.  Things, however, do change.

 

[zftcg]

Why not run the primaries for seven consecutive weeks.  Each week a bundle of states representing roughly 560 delegates goes to the polls.  The bundles can be worked out but should, as much as possible, represent some geographic diversity, in fact the maximum that can be achieved.   Each election cycle the order rotates as to which bundle goes first, which second, and so on so that after seven election cycles each bundle has been in each weekly slot.

I know, the states set their own schedules.  Things, however, do change.

I agree that the schedule has to change. But any new system is going to have winners and losers. The seven-week sprint you propose would likely benefit candidates with lots of money and name recognition and prevent someone from rising organically.

Here's a question: if you assume you want to start the process out with some level of retail politics, is there a smallish state with a diverse population, ideally a swing state so that all the organizing work parties do beforehand doesn't get tossed in the trash as soon as the primary is over?

Looking at a US map, nothing perfectly fits all those criteria, but I think Minnesota/Wisconsin come closest. They're not small, but they're also not dominated by major media markets that would suck up all the money (although I suppose SE Wisconsin overlaps with the Chicago media market). Oregon could also potentially work, but it's not very swingy.

Other problem with the rotation idea is that it assumes all elections are basically the same. If there's an incumbent president running, the states that go first have basically "wasted" half of their opportunity. You also may see politicians gaming the system, particularly if the rotation is based on regional groupings (which you're not proposing here, but which I've seen others touting). So Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are both eyeing the race, but Harris knows that this is a "West Coast" year, so she can get in the race and get an early boost from some easy wins in CA, OR and WA, while Warren doesn't get to her home-field advantage until the last group of primaries, by which point she's likely to be out of the race.

Anyway, not trying to crap all over your idea. I just suspect fixing this is going to be a lot harder than it looks.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think primaries either need to be a fully state controlled thing or fully private thing. No state resources should go to primaries unless the state has full control. 

 

[zftcg]

I think primaries either need to be a fully state controlled thing or fully private thing. No state resources should go to primaries unless the state has full control. 

I think if we're treating them like elections they should be elections, run by the same entities that run general elections. It's all this "a little bit pregnant" stuff that ends up causing so many of the problems.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

First we should decide if we even want a primary system at all.  I'm not sure of a better way, but the current Democratic primary is ridiculous.  One of the most important considerations for voters (if not the most important) is "electability", i.e., guessing what candidates other Americans are going to like better.  I don't feel like the electorate is qualified to make that judgment at all, and I don't think it's very consistent with the entire notion of democracy.  Voters are supposed to be telling us what they want.  They aren't supposed to be telling us who they think other people want.

 

[roadkill1292]

First we should decide if we even want a primary system at all.  I'm not sure of a better way, but the current Democratic primary is ridiculous.  One of the most important considerations for voters (if not the most important) is "electability", i.e., guessing what candidates other Americans are going to like better.  I don't feel like the electorate is qualified to make that judgment at all, and I don't think it's very consistent with the entire notion of democracy.  Voters are supposed to be telling us what they want.  They aren't supposed to be telling us who they think other people want.

Primaries are not how parliamentary nations choose their candidates. Which doesn't necessarily mean that those systems result in better candidates. But at least they don't waste an inordinate amount of time and money on the process (I still contend that the only people who like our electoral processes are the tiny but powerful election industry). And as the world's greatest country -- so I've heard it called -- we should be able to come up with the best electoral process just like we should be able to come up with the world's best universal health care system. Our failures to achieve either are globally embarrassing.

But if we gotta do primaries, it should be a version of the old "Delaware" system proposed by the GOP executive committee 20 years ago. I've got my own version of this system floating around in one of these threads.

 

[adonis]

Why not run the primaries for seven consecutive weeks.  Each week a bundle of states representing roughly 560 delegates goes to the polls.  The bundles can be worked out but should, as much as possible, represent some geographic diversity, in fact the maximum that can be achieved.   Each election cycle the order rotates as to which bundle goes first, which second, and so on so that after seven election cycles each bundle has been in each weekly slot.

I know, the states set their own schedules.  Things, however, do change.

It could be like a draft, where each state comes to see what spot they'll get.  Perhaps they have more chances to get the top spot if their state results were closest to the national results.

 

[zftcg]

It could be like a draft, where each state comes to see what spot they'll get.  Perhaps they have more chances to get the top spot if their state results were closest to the national results.

Based solely on this post, CNN just bid $10M to host the draft in prime time.

 

[Mister CIA]

I operate under the assumption that the primary purpose of the primary system is money laundering.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I were in control of a party’s primaries and I wanted that party to win in the general, swing states would get fifty times more delegates than non-swing states.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If I were in control of a party’s primaries and I wanted that party to win in the general, swing states would get fifty times more delegates than non-swing states.

Interesting.  Unabashedly make it about electability and power, take away pretenses of representative democracy until the general election. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

If I were in control of a party’s primaries and I wanted that party to win in the general, swing states would get fifty times more delegates than non-swing states.

Another way would be to automatically seat a number of "unpledged delegates" who could support whomever they want, regardless of the primary voting results in their states.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Another way would be to automatically seat a number of "unpledged delegates" who could support whomever they want, regardless of the primary voting results in their states.

I’d just get some dudes in a room at the convention. 

 

[zftcg]

Another way would be to automatically seat a number of "unpledged delegates" who could support whomever they want, regardless of the primary voting results in their states.

Aren't you describing the superdelegate system that the Democrats just finished neutering?

This whole debate reminds me a little of the "How should the NBA deal with tanking?" question. You can't come up with a solution until you have clarity and agreement on what the ultimate goal is. If I were designing a primary system in a vacuum it wouldn't necessarily need to be 100% democratic, but in practice I think such a system is unsustainable, because the side arguing for more democracy will always have an easier time persuading the public. That's basically what happened with superdelegates, which made sense in theory but in practice were meaningless because they were never going to take a nomination away from a plurality winner.

 

[zftcg]

I’d just get some dudes in a room at the convention. 

Would there be cigars? And would the room be located in the front of the facility or the back?

 

[Marauder]

Maybe we should go back to the way it was in the old days when the party bosses controlled who got the nomination through back room dealings.   And when I say the old days I mean 2016.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I’d just get some dudes in a room at the convention. 

My office is a few blocks away from the convention this summer.  We have scotch.  and a ton of those fizzy vodka and water drinks the kids all love.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

My office is a few blocks away from the convention this summer.  We have scotch.  and a ton of those fizzy vodka and water drinks the kids all love.

Is this an invitation or simply bragging.  My office use to have free soda, but no more.  We do get free ice.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Is this an invitation or simply bragging.  My office use to have free soda, but no more.  We do get free ice.

For you sir, definitely an invitation.  Others will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

 

[zftcg]

Is this an invitation or simply bragging.  My office use to have free soda, but no more.  We do get free ice.

Lucky you. Mine charges us $5/lb.