Discuss the merits of presidential primaries. June 2008

Q set for H/W – 1 week

To what extent did the nominations of McCain and Obama strengthen the case for reforming the method of choosing presidential candidates?June 2010

Resources

Bennett book – p46-58

Primaries and Caucuses evaluated, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review November 2008

Update: Why Hilary Clinton lost the primary race, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review

September 2008

The 2004 Presidential Primaries, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review November 2004

Key reform article – In Search of Reform by William G Mayer

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MLB/is_1_53/ai_108694004/

For further reform plans, see also:

- Frontloading HQ at http://frontloading.blogspot.com/

- Fix the Primaries - http://fixtheprimaries.com/

- Washington Post Op-Ed - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-closed-primaries-

further-polarize-our-politics/2011/09/02/gIQARBPb2J_story.html

Articles (below)–

- Economist I – p3-4

- Economist II – p5-7

- New York Times letters – p8-9

- New York Times Editorial – p10-11

- Primary reform blog post – p12

- CNN article – p13-14

- National Presidential Caucus – p15

- Primary Election Season too long? No – p16

- Primary Problems p17-21

Invisible primary and early state votes

Party Fundraising

leader in pre-election year

Gallup poll leader at start of election

year Iowa Winner

New Hampshire winner

Presidential candidate

1980 Republicans John Connally Ronald Reagan George H W Bush Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan

1980 Democrats Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter

1984 Republicans Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan

1984 Democrats Walter Mondale Walter Mondale Walter Mondale Gart Hart Walter Mondale

1988 Republicans George H W Bush George H W Bush Bob Dole George H W Bush

George H W Bush

1988 Democrats Michael Dukakis Gary Hart Richard Gephardt Michael Dukakis Michael Dukakis

1992 Republicans George H W Bush George H W Bush George H W Bush

George H W Bush

George H W Bush

1992 Democrats Bill Clinton Jerry Brown Tom Harkin Paul Tsongas Bill Clinton

1996 Republicans Bob Dole Bob Dole Bob Dole Patrick Buchanan Bob Dole

1996 Democrats Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton

2000 Republicans George W Bush George W Bush George W Bush John McCain George W Bush

2000 Democrats Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore

2004 Republicans George W Bush George W Bush George W Bush

2004 Democrats Howard Dean Howard Dean John Kerry John Kerry John Kerry

2008 Republicans Rudy Giuliani Rudy Giuliani Mike Huckabee John McCain John McCain

2008 Democrats Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Barrack Obama

America's presidential primaries

Moving the Californian primary looks like a mistake; but so is not

changing the current system

Feb 15th 2007 From The Economist print edition

IS CALIFORNIA'S governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, about to terminate America's

venerable system of primary elections, that months-long political charivari that brings fleeting

fame to the otherwise obscure citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire? He certainly seems to be

trying. Last weekend the governor said he favoured moving California's presidential

primaries up to February 5th. This week the bill passed in California's Senate, and will soon

do so in the Assembly (see article). The new date is 22 days after Iowa opens the nominating

season with its caucuses, and 14 days after New Hampshire stages the first primaries. If, as

they are threatening, other big states such as Illinois, Michigan and Florida follow suit, the

presidential nominations for both parties could be sewn up three weeks after the process

begins, and almost ten months before the election is actually held in November 2008.

Undoubtedly this will change the nature of the American electoral process. The early

primaries and caucuses have, by design, tended to be in the smaller states, where they have

encouraged an informal style of campaigning based on stump speeches, town-hall meetings

and pressing of the flesh. Already, a year before the first primary, candidates for the

nominations have been staking out the territory. Hillary Clinton was in New Hampshire last

weekend; Barack Obama was there a couple of days later. The audience for their efforts is

national: viewers across America can tune in to see a smaller-scale, more human side to their

leading politicians than will be on show later in the process.

As a result, the existing system offers a chance for the underdog to make his or her mark—as

John Kerry did with an upset victory in Iowa in 2004, or as John McCain did in New

Hampshire in 2000, going on to give George Bush an unexpected run for his money. Once the

big states come into play, television is the only practical way to reach the voters, and the

advantage goes to whoever has the biggest pot of money to spend on advertising. But a

victory in Iowa or New Hampshire can help an underdog develop the momentum needed to

raise enough cash to crack some of those big states. If the process is telescoped down to

barely three weeks, there will be no chance for momentum to build up, and probably a good

deal less of the ―retail politics‖ that is a refreshing contrast to slick television advertising.

That does not mean the existing system is perfect: it gives undue weight to the opinions of

voters in a few atypically rural, white and wealthy states. Iowa's 3m inhabitants have been

dutiful presidential vetters, but why should they (and their odd views on ethanol subsidies)

matter so much more than 36m Californians? The creation in 1988 of ―Super Tuesday‖, an

arrangement whereby the southern states hold their primaries on the same day to maximise

the region's impact, only enhanced this bias against the big states.

So reform would be welcome. But California's move looks self-defeating. As many as 17

states are likely to emulate the Golden State, which would largely neutralise what it is doing.

It is reasonably clear where the process will end, as the states scramble over each other to be

early: in something closely resembling a national primary on or around a single day as early

as possible in the year of the election, and maybe even late in the year before it. Of course,

many other countries have party primaries confined to a single day, and the 24-hour news

cycle, not to mention the continual guerrilla war in the blogosphere, means that three weeks

can be an exceptionally long time in politics. But America is so big, and its tradition of

seeking presidential candidates from outside the ranks of party leadership so well entrenched,

that a compressed primary system would be a pity.

Don't meddle, mend

Any solution needs to strike a balance between two laudable but incompatible aims: keeping

the intimacy of small-state retail politics and letting the huge numbers of people who live in

the big states have a say. The answer is probably a modified version of the ―America Plan‖: it

proposes a series of ten randomly selected multi-state primaries, spaced over 20 weeks, in

which some big states could vote early. But it takes too long. A system that started with, say,

a sequence of five randomly chosen states first, followed by two or three ―Super Tuesdays‖,

would be better. And the process should start later: at present, it paralyses the world's

mightiest government for more than a year. If the first primary came in April, it would still

leave plenty of time for the summer conventions.

The chances of such a system emerging soon are slim: it would require the co-operation of

the states and the parties, and the states guard their independence jealously. But California's

bold move should now prompt thought of reform.

In praise of New Hampshire and Iowa

The two states that kick off America’s presidential voting look less and less like the rest

of the country. What a shame

Jan 20th 2000 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition

IT IS 8am on a typical day in New Hampshire. The school assembly hall in Plymouth is

packed with children and parents who have come to hear John McCain. He talks about

Vietnam, a war that is ancient history to most of the pupils, and about his meeting with two

(male) rap singers whom they all know. (―Busta Rhymes was wearing a very nice dress,‖ he

jokes. ―Perhaps I could borrow it.‖) Two hours later, the children go off to class to discuss

what they have learned (―that politicians are more interesting than we thought‖, is the

consensus) and Mr McCain leaves to attend a lunch with the Rotary Club of Concord.

As he leaves, his bus passes that of Steve Forbes, on his way to a meeting with a veterans’

organisation in Manchester, the state’s biggest city. Simultaneously, around the corner from

the veterans’ club, Bill Bradley is answering questions at a health-care forum organised at the

University of New Hampshire in Manchester. By the end of the day he will also have pressed

the flesh at Lindy’s Diner, an obligatory stop for candidates in the state (―We’ve had them all

in here over the years,‖ says its owner). Al Gore, who held his own school meeting the week

before, pops in later.

As America’s long process of picking its president formally gets under way next week, the

country’s tradition of grass-roots democracy seems as vibrant as ever. ―No sooner do you set

foot on the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult,‖ Alexis de Tocqueville

wrote in 1835. ―Here the people of one quarter of a town are met to decide upon the building

of a church; there, the election of a representative is going on...The cares of political life

engross a most prominent place in the preoccupation of a citizen of the United States.‖

Yet the impression is, in large part, misleading. If you set foot in America now, the most

stunning sentiment seems to be apathy. The country, as Norman Ornstein of the American

Enterprise Institute puts it, ―is a hotbed of social rest‖. The share of the electorate that bothers

to vote continues to fall, probably to below 50% again this year. In the aftermath of the

Gingrich revolution, voters have switched from hostility towards politics to detachment from

it.

But now turn your eyes back to Iowa and New Hampshire. There, the Tocquevillean

traditions are not just alive but kicking. In Iowa, which holds a caucus (indirect) election on

January 24th, a poll by the Des Moines Register, the state’s biggest newspaper, found that

one voter in three of those likely to participate in the caucuses had met a candidate, and one in

four had met the candidate he or she plans to vote for. A local joke: ―What do you think of Al

Gore?‖ ―I don’t know yet, I’ve only met him three times.‖

In New Hampshire, which holds a primary (direct) vote on February 1st, a poll by Dartmouth

College found that a third of the state’s voters said they were paying a lot of attention to the

race. That is roughly twice the average in the country as a whole (16% says the Pew Research

Centre). Among the state’s voters, 15% said they had met a candidate, almost a fifth had been

to a rally and an amazing 10% had had candidates in their own living rooms.

So here lies a contradiction of American democracy: that there is vibrant grass-roots political

activity in small, atypical states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, yet apparent boredom in

the country as a whole. The contradiction has long existed. But this year it has widened even

further—probably because of television news coverage.

Consider the contrast between New Hampshire and California. New Hampshire’s main local

news station covers every candidate every day that he or she spends in the state. The result is

that you can hear the candidates, speaking at length and in their own words, frequently for an

hour or more a day. This gives an incentive for candidates to visit the state, if only for the

television time.

Now look at what happened in the governor’s race in California in 1998. A study by the

Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California found an

average of less than four minutes on the governor’s race in all local news broadcasts each

night; of the 8,664 hours of such broadcasting during the three months before polling day,

only 0.3% (27 hours) was devoted to the race. The campaign still took place—but in the form

of paid television advertising, on which the two candidates spent about $60m. Marty Kaplan

of the Annenberg school concluded that ―there’s no incentive for candidates to do events...If

they’re not going to get on the air, why bother?...Free media basically doesn’t exist.‖

So two cycles are set in motion. In one, campaigning is done through paid television

advertisements (―the air campaign‖); this tends to other forms of political activity. In the

other, ―the ground campaign‖ encourages more TV coverage and more true politics.

For this reason, and also because the contests are close this year, the two early states are

seeing even more political activity. Hugh Winebrenner of Drake University in Iowa reckons

that, by the time of the caucus vote, the candidates will between them have spent more than

700 days in the state. In New Hampshire Linda Fowler, a professor of government at

Dartmouth College, thinks the turnout could be as high as 60%, comparable with that in 1992,

the last time there were two open races—and far above the average even for national

elections, let alone primary votes in other states.

What should one make of this? The critics of the primary process are already complaining

that it shows again that this is no way to set about picking the leader of the free world. Iowa

has fewer than 3m people, New Hampshire only 1.2m. Ethnically and economically, they are

among the least typical states, being 98% white and, in Iowa’s case, largely tied to farming.

They also tend to pick people with no chance of winning the presidency. In 1988, the

eventual nominees both came third in the Iowa caucuses.

Why the old way is better

Yet the 2000 campaign has shown that there is much to be said for old-fashioned retail

politics as practised in the two early primary states. To begin with, they have turned expected

coronations into genuine races. In the middle of last year, both Al Gore and George Bush

were coasting on huge cushions of support. Now both are in dead-heats with their main rivals

in New Hampshire.

The closeness of the race has helped to make the front-runners better, or at least more

effective, candidates. In the early stages, Messrs Bush and Gore found it hard to deliver a

coherent message. Mr Gore has called 11 different issues his ―top priority‖. But, since he

moved his campaign base to Nashville and fired half the staff, he has become a much more

formidable campaigner. Mr Bush meanwhile has stripped his message down to two themes,

taxes and education. In his case, the campaign has also allayed some of the fears that he was

not up to the job intellectually. Recent debates have seen him relaxed and informed, a world

away from his previous efforts.

Above all, the campaigns have given voters a much clearer sense of the policy choices before

them. This is largely because the closeness of the races has forced candidates to take and

defend positions earlier than they would normally have done. On the stump and in the

debates, the Republicans have done much of their talking about taxes. (Mr Bush proposes a

$480 billion tax cut over five years, Mr McCain a cut of half that sum, Steve Forbes and Gary

Bauer varieties of a flat tax.) The Democrats have said little about taxes, concentrating on

health care and education. This may not be surprising, but it is a useful reminder that, despite

the centrist character of both parties, there are still significant ideological differences between

them.

More important, the campaign has revealed that the differences within the parties are as

striking as those between them. As E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post and the Brookings

Institution argues, the Democratic candidates see the presidency in very different ways. Bill

Bradley, says Mr Dionne, thinks a president ―should stake out bold positions and bring the

country round to his view.‖ But Mr Gore thinks America ―will respond more to nudges than

to big shoves.‖ So he proposes a long list of modest programmes, not a short list of big ones.

On the Republican side, the differences are not just over the size of the tax cut but over

economic priorities. Mr Bush wants to cut taxes first and use the surplus that remains to

finance the transitional costs of reforming Social Security. Mr McCain wants to reform Social

Security first, setting aside 62% of the budget surplus for that (and 10% of Medicare), and

then use whatever is left to cut taxes. This could make a big difference if the surpluses were

smaller than expected.

These are vital points, complex in their details, and not easily captured in a 30-second TV ad.

But that is what you find out through months of campaigning in small states widely dismissed

as atypical. Thank goodness for such small mercies.

New York Times

LETTERS; What Do Fair Primaries Look Like?

To the Editor:

''Primary Reforms'' (editorial, June 8) suggests that we hold regional primaries on a rotating

schedule. But the best and most democratic reform would be to hold primaries the same way

we have presidential elections.

There should be one person one vote on one day for all voters regardless of where they live.

Why has it taken so long for us to even think about having real democracy?

Bob Saxton

Eugene, Ore., June 8, 2008

To the Editor:

The Democrats' nominating process is indeed ''seriously flawed,'' even though this year it

fortunately produced a candidate well qualified to be president. But more is needed than the

reforms your editorial suggests.

Outrageous amounts of money played too large a role in narrowing the field this year, and

opening some primaries to Republicans and independents created opportunities for mischief.

Democrats should consider caps on spending and limiting their primaries to registered

Democrats.

David A. Belasco

South Orange, N.J., June 8, 2008

To the Editor:

Our first step toward primary reform should be to have a national one-day primary. There is

no need to continue this wearying process of states' jockeying to be kingmakers, solely to

satisfy local egos.

The caucuses do not serve to determine the will of all of a state's voters. Iowa and New

Hampshire could continue their archaic practices but still have a statewide election like other

states.

To maximize voter participation would be to ensure that a national primary is not held on a

workday.

There is absolutely no need for superdelegates other than to fan controversy. Why should

these self-proclaimed elitists have a greater voice than the rank-and-file voters? Get rid of

them.

Also disturbing this year were the calls for candidates to withdraw before all voters had cast

their ballots.

I call upon party leaders to take the necessary actions so we do not have to endure another

fiasco in 2012.

Ira Landis

Ocean Hills, Calif., June 8, 2008

To the Editor:

I agree that the primary process needs to be changed, and if the parties won't take steps to do

so by 2012, then Congress should step in.

I appreciate tradition as much as the next guy, but we need to thank Iowa and New

Hampshire for services rendered and then let them join the rest of us mere mortals.

I would suggest a series of five regional primaries, with the order rotating each election

season. There could be one primary every four or five weeks, starting in January or February,

to finish the process by June.

Such a system would offer political, physical and fiscal benefits. For instance, candidates

could focus on regional issues for a month at a time, which would require greater depth and

detail -- not a bad thing in a sound-bite age.

Candidates would not need to repeatedly crisscross the country, which, at the very least,

would be less costly to pocketbooks and to the environment. And candidates could

strategically combine some media buys for markets that cross state lines.

Simon J. Dahlman

Johnson City, Tenn., June 8, 2008

To the Editor:

Your editorial did not mention one reform that should accompany elimination of

superdelegates.

Some states hold open primaries, in which people can vote regardless of party affiliation. In

these cases, superdelegates provide a necessary protection against manipulation of primary

elections.

While elimination of superdelegates is a desirable reform, it should be accompanied by

provision for closed primaries in which some procedure assures that voting involves some

degree of commitment to the party involved.

Thomas H. Hagoort

Shelter Island, N.Y., June 8, 2008

New York Times

Editorial: Primary Reforms

Published: June 8, 2008

The strange ritual of the Iowa caucuses, the fight over the Michigan and Florida delegations,

the battle over the superdelegates — it has been a colorful nominating season, but not the

most democratic one. It takes nothing away from the achievements of Barack Obama and

John McCain to take note that the system for choosing the parties’ nominees is seriously

flawed.

The Senate is planning hearings on the subject, and both parties are talking about reform. We

hope a better system will be in place by 2012.

A guiding principle behind American democracy is ―one person, one vote.‖ All voters should

have an equal opportunity, regardless of who they are or where they live, to affect the

outcome. The process should be transparent, the ballot should be secret, and there should be

no unnecessary barriers to voting. Tested against these principles, both parties’ systems fall

short. Among the most troubling elements:

Caucuses: These are often promoted as pure small-town democracy. But participants

generally have to commit themselves for hours, a sizable burden on the right to vote,

especially for people who care for children or sick relatives. There is no absentee voting, so

caucuses disenfranchise voters who have conflicting work schedules; who are out of town,

including in the military; or who are too sick to travel to the caucus site.

The ballot is not secret, which intimidates some voters into staying away or not expressing

their true choices. Vote totals are not reported. The parties should abandon caucuses and

switch entirely to primaries.

The schedule: More voters than usual had a chance to play a role this year because the

Democratic race was so close. Still, some voters — notably those in Iowa and New

Hampshire — had an outsized influence, and had candidates doting on them, while other

states were afterthoughts. The best solution would be to divide the states into groups, by

region or another method, and have the groups vote in a sequence that changes every four

years.

The Republicans are considering a rotating schedule, known as the ―Ohio Plan,‖ which could

be adopted at this year’s convention. It is a step in the right direction. There are also bills in

Congress to create rotating primaries. The goal should be a system in which voters in all

states have an equal chance to go first.

Allocating delegates: The Republicans have winner-take-all contests in some states and some

Congressional districts. That means a candidate can win nearly 50 percent of the vote and

receive no delegates. The Democratic rules are, in their own way, poorly designed to translate

votes into delegates. Both parties’ rules should be rewritten to ensure that the delegates

candidates receive in a state reflect their percentage of the vote.

Superdelegates: Nearly 20 percent of the Democratic delegates are so-called superdelegates.

The party created these unelected delegates to give elected officials and party insiders a

greater say in the nomination process. If superdelegates ratify the choice made by the elected

delegates, they are unnecessary. If they overrule that choice, their influence is undemocratic.

As Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and others have recommended, superdelegates should be

eliminated.

There are other issues to consider. The Democrats, in particular, should have clear rules for

how states will be punished if they violate scheduling rules — as Michigan and Florida did

this year — so the party does not end up making up new rules in the middle of the campaign.

Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate rules committee, which has jurisdiction over

elections, says she wants to hold hearings next month on rotating primaries and related issues.

Ideally, the parties would fix the process themselves, but insiders do not always have the

interests of ordinary voters at heart. Whoever takes action, the goal should be a new and

improved nominating process that reflects the will of the people.

From No Speed Bumps.com blog – expanding American freedom in the 21st Century

Primary Election Reform: One State Votes, Then 49

Having the nomination of presidential candidates start off in the small states of Iowa and New

Hampshire is kind of nice. Some pundits say that it is great because candidates are forced to

take on the 19th century style of campaigning. They have to meet the locals, show up a local

churches and schools to talk, and even go into people’s living rooms. That is all fun and nice,

but this is the 21st century. Does it make sense to make Iowa and New Hampshire more

influential in primary elections than states that have many times their populations?

If Iowa and New Hampshire have more influence on the nomination process than for example

New York, Texas, and California, then the primary election process is weak in terms of

representative democracy. Yes, having all states vote on the same day is more staid and takes

away some of the appeal of the state by state primary process, but it is more democratic

overall.

And we already have all 50 states vote on the same day - on the day we elect the actual

president - and it doesn’t seem so bad. No one is arguing that we should hold the final

election first in Iowa, and then in New Hampshire, and so on. That would be unfair and not

democratic enough. Well, if it’s not right on election day, then it’s not right during the

primaries either.

Perhaps we could retain an element of the old-style campaign process. Consider this as a

reform: Every four years there is a lottery, run by the interested political parties, which picks

one state to hold the first primary. Then a week later the other 49 states vote on the same day.

This is a compromise, and the state that has more influence in the election changes every four

years.

Having one randomly selected state to have the primary first would help create more interest

in the whole election process. Symbolism and inspiration matter in a democracy. It would be

cool if in one election Alaska had the primary first, and 4 years later say Alabama or Oregon

had it.

Retaining an element of today’s primary process seems acceptable as part of an overall

reform of how parties nominate their presidential candidates.

CNN Election Center March 27, 2008

Senator calls for sweeping election overhaul

Story Highlights

•Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, will propose six interregional presidential primaries

•Nelson wants presidency based on popular vote, not Electoral College

•Senator says, "The blessings of liberty cannot wait"

•Lawmaker, who backs Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, has sought Florida revote

(CNN) -- Sen. Bill Nelson on Thursday proposed an overhaul of U.S. presidential election

laws, saying the dispute over delegates in Florida and Michigan has exposed a flawed

nominating system.

Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida proposes getting rid of the Electoral College system.

In a speech on the floor of the Florida state Senate Thursday, Nelson said he formally will

introduce legislation that will attempt to fix many of the problems exposed by this cycle's

round of presidential primaries, adding that the "time for reform is now."

"This country cannot afford to wait that long before we fix the flaws we still see in our

election system," Nelson said. "The blessings of liberty cannot wait."

Specifically, Nelson said he will propose six rotating interregional primaries that "will give

large and small states a fair say in the nomination process."

These primaries would be conducted on dates ranging from March to June, Nelson said,

taking the place of the current early-voting states Iowa and New Hampshire -- which critics

long have argued aren't representative of the American electorate.

The dates initially would be set by a lottery system for the 2012 election and would rotate

positions in successive elections.

The Florida Democrat also said all citizens should be allowed to vote absentee if they so

choose, and he is pushing for a federal grant incentive program to help develop voting by

mail and via the Internet.

Nelson also formally will seek to award the presidency based on the popular vote instead the

Electoral College -- a move that would require a stand-alone bill since it would require an

amendment to the Constitution.

"The goal is simple: one person, one vote," Nelson said in his speech Thursday.

Nelson's Senate office said he is working to gain support for the bill and indicated it could be

ready for a committee hearing in the coming weeks.

Previous electoral reform efforts, especially those seeking to eliminate the Electoral College,

have failed to gain widespread support.

Last fall, three senators also introduced a proposal for four regional primaries, but the

legislation failed to gain traction. Nelson, along with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, also

proposed a regional primary plan last fall.

Nelson, a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton's White House bid, has been at the center of

election overhaul efforts for much of last year since leaders in his state voted to move up the

presidential primary ahead of the approved date by the Democratic and Republican parties.

Watch more on the challenges Clinton faces »

The Democratic National Committee stripped his state of all convention delegates, while the

GOP penalized Florida by cutting its delegate strength in half.

Last fall, Nelson unsuccessfully sued his party over the sanction, saying the lawsuit "is about

the right of every American to have access to the ballot box, and to have that vote count --

and to have it count as intended."

The DNC took similar action against Michigan, and both states' convention delegations are

the subject of a heated back-and-forth between the two Democratic major presidential

candidates and local party leaders.

Nelson, a strong proponent of a mail-in revote in Florida earlier this month, has warned of a

"train wreck" for the Democratic Party should it snub his state at the national convention in

August.

But the revote efforts in Florida and Michigan, which Clinton campaign strongly has

championed, failed to gain approval.

Neither state will be awarded seats at the convention unless the two candidates and the DNC

can agree on a compromise that satisfies all parties.

"If nothing else, this election has provided further evidence that our system is broken,"

Nelson said Thursday.

"My fight has been based on the principle that in America every citizen has an equal right to

vote.

"It is based on a premise that Floridians are entitled to have their votes count as intended. And

it is based on a belief that we all deserve a say in picking our presidential nominees."

National Presidential Caucus website

About the National Presidential Caucus

Building on the success of the 2007 National Presidential Caucus to stimulate participation through

local presidential straw poll caucuses across the country, the NPC has now taken up the challenge of advocating for reform of the 2012 primary calendar.

"Working for 2012 Primary Reform"

There is a near universal consensus on the need to reform of the presidential primary process by

both parties and by the state governments who must finally schedule and typically pay for primary elections. There is near complete agreement that the primary season starts too early and lasts too long. There is also a general feeling that so-called retail politics is beneficial to the selection process but only possible in the small state environment.

Yet due to the decision making process where nearly all have to agree, nothing much has happened over the 36 years since the primary system was implemented as one reform plan after another has been offered and for one reason or another ignored or rejected.

2008 allowed a handful of states to reduce a qualified field of over a dozen candidates down to 3 even before Super Tuesday, Feb. 5th. The unexpected and prolonged Democratic race was the exception that proved the rule that citizens rarely if ever get a chance to cast meaningful votes to select their party's nominee.

The good: The body politic now has a taste for authentic participation, long yearned for but hardly expected. Each major party has now formally committed to setting up its own 2012 Reform Commission to propose changes for party adoption by 2010. These parallel and unprecedented initiatives create a real prospect for meaningful reform.

The bad: Voting in 2008 primary season came within an eyelash of starting in 2007. Even as 24

states crowded into the first permissible date, Feb. 5, their choices by then had already been reduced from some 15 to only 3. In this de facto national primary, there was essentially zero opportunity for any but the most well known, well funded candidates to have a chance.

The ugly: No reform proposals for the 2012 Primary and chaos ensues.

Leading 2012 Reform Proposals:

There are now many competing plans and none are leading. Popular sentiment is to have a single national primary day. The National Secretaries of State and the National Governors Association support rotating regional primaries. Both major national parties have no current consensus plans.

Opportunity to Push for Reform:

Due to the enormous effect that primary election rules have on the selection of party nominees and thereby the US presidency, the National Presidential Caucus urges everyone to engage on this issue and to advocate for their positions and proposals at state and national levels.

The National Presidential Caucus for 2012 Reform is a open discussion platform to promote and

moderate multi-party deliberations over the next 12-18 months. Its goal is to foster a consensus plan that prevents an almost assured disaster in the next cycle if no change occurs.

Is the US primary election season too long? No

by Patricia Farley

The primary election season is not too long. It gives people time to get to know candidates to

be a more informed voter. Learning what the candidate wants to do for America is important.

Just making an in the dark vote is not good especially when the economy is as bad as it has

become. It gives every candidate a chance to win over votes and a chance to run for president

if the primary election is as long as it is suppose to be. Voters need time to weigh in on their

opinions before they decide how they want to vote. The office of president is an office that

effects millions of Americans and there needs to be time for a primary election to take place

in a organized manner.

Many more issue can be brought to light that may not have been considered if the primary

election was a rushed process. They need to be time to narrow down the candidate field to the

most likely candidates for the job. If everything was rushed it would seem like candidates

would be eliminated without given a chance to prove themselves. Freedom to vote is a great

privilege and so the primary election should not be cut short. To include everyone in the

voting times need be set up so that everyone gets their chance to vote. People want a chance

to ask candidates important questions about what they plan on doing for American and let

candidate see their points to view.

A candidate that is able to stay in a primary election for the needed length of time will be to

better handle the office that they are seeking. Candidates need to be tried and true, so the

primary election is not too long. Cutting the primary election process will not make deciding

on who to vote easier but actually harder. Many qualifications need to take place to ensure

that a candidate is the right choice. The primary election season needs to be one that allows

each candidate to present themselves. With that said each candidate needs to proses the ability

to present themselves.

Voters need time to ask themselves the tough questions before they cast their vote. Voters

need time to see who is running for office and decide which way they want to vote. Voters

need time to learn the history or the past performance of each candidate before they vote.

Many features make up a primary election season, and it is not a decision process that should

be rushed ahead of itself. Everyone should be allowed to take their time in deciding who they

want to vote for, so the primary election season is not too long.

13 March 2007

Primary Problems

Posted by Political Realm at 1:09 PM

It seems most people would agree that the system used to select presidential nominees is

flawed. However, despite the best attempts to change the process for the 2008 cycle, the

method is still far from perfect. In a series of posts, we'll attempt to identify problems with the

nominating process and discuss solutions.

Part 1: Iowa and New Hampshire

One of the central problems with the system is that Iowa and New Hampshire have too much

influence. But is that really true?

Consider that only one man (excluding incumbent presidents--Clinton in 1996 and Reagan in

1984) has gone on to win the presidency after winning the Iowa Caucuses since 1976. That

man? George W. Bush. Jimmy Carter was close in 1976, losing to "uncommitted" by nine

points. Bill Clinton in 1992, George Bush in 1988, and Ronald Reagan in 1980 all lost, but

went on to win the nomination and the White House.

New Hampshire's record for picking winners is a little better, but neither of the last two

presidents won there (Clinton in 1992, Bush in 2000).

These early contests can make or break a candidate, but as history shows, candidates often go

on to win the nomination and the White House without succeeding in these early states.

In 2000, John McCain, whose campaign began in obscurity, became a credible challenger to

George W. Bush after thumping him in New Hampshire (McCain skipped the Iowa Caucuses

entirely). In 1992, Bill Clinton lost both the early contests, but parlayed his better than

expected finish in New Hampshire into the momentum needed to win the nomination. Jimmy

Carter came out of nowhere in Iowa in 1976 and became the nominee. Conversely, Bill

Bradley's challenge to Al Gore in 2000 came to an end after he fell short in New Hampshire.

Howard Dean, the surprise frontrunner, and Dick Gephardt both saw their campaigns fall

apart after disappointing results in Iowa in 2004.

In reality, Iowa and New Hampshire do more to winnow large fields down to a select two or

three candidates. Results in these early states have significant impacts on fundraising and

provide poll bumps for candidates that win or exceed expectations. But these states do

provide advantages that candidates may not otherwise be afforded. The lower cost of

advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire, lessens the importance of money. Candidates are

forced to meet voters face to face and truly discuss their positions--the type of retail

politicking that isn't feasible in many larger states.

18 March 2007

Primary Problems

Posted by Political Realm at 7:09 PM

In the first part of this series last week, we discussed the influence that Iowa and New

Hampshire have had on the nominating process. Today, we'll look at the pros and cons of the

national primary that is set to take place on February 5th.

Part 2: National Primary? No Thanks.

With California officially moving its primaries this week to February 5th, it is possible that

more than twenty states, which include half of the US population, will hold primaries on that

date. But will this de facto national primary really change the nominating process for the

better? Let's take a look at some of the problems that exist and how they will be affected by a

national primary.

Too Much, Too Soon

Get ready for the longest campaign season in history. With the distinct possibility that one or

both parties will have their nominees on February 6th, the general election campaign will

stretch on for nine months. This sluggish eternity will prevent campaigns from maintaining

any sort of momentum and will only turn off voters from the process. The primary period will

have lasted even longer--with several candidates making subtle moves before the midterm

elections last November and official announcements immediately after the results were in,

candidates will have been campaigning for over a year by the time Iowans caucus in January.

After literally two full years of nonstop campaigning, who can blame voters for feeling

fatigued?

The primary process has become more front-loaded than ever--a problem that is only

worsened as more and more states rush to move their primaries up. In 1980, just one state had

held a primary before the end of February. This year, voters in perhaps thirty states will have

already gone to the polls during the same period. After a nominating process that was too

front-loaded in 2004, the problem seems to be getting worse, not better.

The Almighty Dollar

Forcing candidates to compete in nearly two dozen states on the same day will give even

more importance to the million dollar donors who are funding today's top tier candidates. The

fundraising bounce that underdogs typically receive after succeeding in an early state will be

minimized in 2008, because there is so little time between the first voting and the primaries

on February 5th. In many ways, the presidency will be completely inaccessible for candidates

who are not backed by massive political machines--long shot candidates need not apply.

Media Influence

Campaign organization and retail politicking that has been so critical to past success in Iowa

and New Hampshire will give way to national campaigning in which the media control the

candidates and the coverage. Nearly a year before any voting actually takes place, the large

fields on both sides are already being winnowed to a select few on each side. If a true national

primary were to take place, where every state voted on the same day, it would be virtually

impossible for a candidate with low name recognition to break through after receiving little or

no media coverage.

Few Voters Are Involved

Voters in states that have traditionally held their primaries later have often complained that

the contests were all but over by the time the headed to the polls. As we discussed in the first

part of this series, however, Iowa and New Hampshire can be make or break, but rarely have

they ended the selecting process. To suggest the votes in the early states are the only ones that

matter ignores history.

Many believe John McCain's 2000 campaign was ended after he lost the South Carolina

primaries to George W. Bush. While that loss helped Bush regain momentum, McCain did go

on to win six more primaries before dropping out. The South Carolina primaries were held on

February 19th and McCain didn't drop out until after a disappointing showing in the "Super

Tuesday" primaries on March 7th. More than twenty states (including California, Ohio, New

York, Michigan, Georgia, and Virginia) had voted by the time McCain suspended his

campaign on March 9th. Historically, later states have had a far greater influence than many

who are pushing for a national primary would like to admit.

Influence of Iowa and New Hampshire

While Iowa and New Hampshire do play a critical part, its possible that moving to a national

primary could be magnify the importance of these early states. The four early states will be

more important than ever for second tier candidates--if they are unable to win in Iowa, New

Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada, its unlikely they will be able to sustain their campaign

through February 5th. The early states will also be more important for the frontrunners as

well. If a frontrunner sweeps the early states, the later states would probably follow suit.

On the other hand, a national primary could limit the influence of the early states, but it would

also limit the influence of virtually all of the smaller population states in the process.

Candidates will be forced to appeal largely to California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, or

Ohio because of the high number of delegates that are concentrated in those states. New

Mexico, Utah, North Dakota, and Arkansas will all be overshadowed by the larger states.

Lack of Vetting

In 2004, John Kerry had the Democratic nomination sewn up early in March, leaving many

Democrats with buyer's remorse during the general election. They had settled on him at the

last moment, fearing an unpredictable Dean candidacy and believing that Kerry's military

experience made him the most electable option. If both parties have their nominees by

February 5th, it's entirely possible that they will have a candidate they regret come fall.

While the current system may be broken, it seems clear that a national primary is not the fix.

In the final part of this series, we'll discuss other possible alternatives and try to determine

how the nominating process could be improved.

09 April 2007

Primary Problems

Posted by Political Realm at 2:26 PM

In the first part of this series we discussed the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire on the

nominating landscape. In part two, we looked at the pros and cons of a national primary day.

In this final installment, we'll examine other possible alternatives to the presidential

nominating process.

Part 3: What's Your Plan?

Everyone seems to agree that the nominating process used today is flawed, but no one can

seem to agree on a solution. So what do people want?

• A shorter campaign season

• Votes that matter in every state, not just the early ones

• A competitive race that increases the public knowledge of and interaction with each

candidate

• A shorter period between a candidate winning the nomination and the party conventions

• Decreased influence of money

• Greater sense of fairness in the process

So how do the alternatives measure up? Let's find out.

Rotating Regional Primary

A plan currently being backed by the National Association of Secretaries of State, this plan

would break the country down into four or five regional groups. The states in each group

would vote on the same day. Each regional block would vote one month apart, beginning in

March or April. The order of voting would be rotated through the regions, so that each region

will eventually have the opportunity to vote first. The plan outlined by the NASS also

suggests that Iowa and New Hampshire maintain their status as the early-voting states, though

that is not a necessary requirement for the plan.

The obvious drawback to this plan is that it could give an advantage to candidates from

certain regions. In 2008, a candidate from the West, like John McCain or Bill Richardson,

may have an unfair advantage if the Western region was voting first. Such a plan would also

do nothing to prevent voters from simply following the leader--voters in the later regions

simply following the votes of the earlier voting states.

Population-Based System

Under this plan, the ten states with the least population would vote first, followed perhaps a

month later by the next ten, and so on, eventually concluding with the ten states with the

highest population.

This alternative could increase the number of states that are currently able to influence the

nomination, because the earliest states would provide the fewest delegates. However, it's

unlikely that the process would last through all five rounds, meaning that voters in the highest

population states would continually be excluded.

National Primary

As we discussed last time, a national primary day would involve each state voting on the

same day. This would ensure maximum participation throughout the country, however it

would also lend advantages to the candidates with the most money and national recognition.

This option would also lead candidates to focus only on the states with the largest amount of

delegates and ignoring everything else. It would also decrease candidate interaction that is

now prevalent in the early voting states.

Blended Alternative

This option would allow several small states, representing a cross-section of the country, to

vote prior to the rest of the country voting on the same day. For example, beginning in May,

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Oregon were allowed to

hold their primaries. Such contests would not necessarily have to occur on the same day, but

within a period of four weeks. These states could be randomly selected and rotated each

cycle. No contests would be held during the month of June, affording candidates the

opportunity to raise money and campaign throughout the country. Then in July, the rest of the

country would vote on the same day.

This plan would allow voters to maintain the increased interaction with candidates that is now

possible in Iowa and New Hampshire. It would also decrease the length of the campaign

season, with the primaries starting much later than is currently planned. It would also allow

voters in every state in the country the opportunity to have an impact on the selection of a

nominee.

Facing Reality

The system isn't perfect and it never will be. Money will always have more of an influence

than most voters would like. And no plan can guarantee that voters in every state will be

involved. It seems the greatest key to a successful nominating season is competitiveness. A

competitive race would stretch beyond the early primaries, involving more voters throughout

the country. It would also give voters a longer opportunity to examine the candidates,

hopefully meaning that more voters will be satisfied with their eventual nominee. The process

would also be improved if voters took more involvement, deciding things for themselves,

rather than following the media of the voters in early states.

So what can we do? Continue the debate.