Proposal For 2012 Primaries

by: Will Bower

Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:04:15 AM EST

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

Will Bower
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Stay classy, Republicans

by: Carnacki

Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 21:37:19 PM EDT

Audience members escorted out of Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., campaign event in Cedar Falls questioned why they were asked to leave Sunday's rally even though they were not protesting.

snip

She said McCain staffers wouldn't tell her why she was being asked to leave and when she got outside, she saw "a group of about 20 people" who had all been asked to leave.

Elborno said after seeing the people who were asked to leave, she was concerned that McCain's staffers were profiling people on appearance to determine who might be a potential protester.

"When I started talking to them, it kind of became clear that they were kind of just telling people to leave that they thought maybe would be disruptive, but based on what? Based on how they looked," Elborno said. "It was pretty much all young people, the college demographic."

Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave.

"I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said 'Why are you crying? and she said 'I already voted for McCain, I'm a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn't look right,'" Elborno said. "They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked."

So McCain wants to be president of only some Americans, the way Shelley Moore Capito represents only some representatives and allows just handpicked people to join her "open" telephone townhalls.

Kos - Iowa: What a Crappy Way to Pick a Candidate

by: wvblueguy

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 19:45:13 PM EST

I passed on my thoughts regarding the Caucus system in Iowa yesterday. Markos analyzed the caucus system in Iowa in about as thorough manner as possible. You can read what he says here.

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph put an OP ED piece by Dale McFeatters on their editorial page that also bemoaned the emphasis put on Iowa.  That can be read in its entirety after the jump.

The Iowa Caucus - Should it Really Mean Anything?

by: wvblueguy

Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST

Its tough being a voter here in West Virginia during the Presidential primaries particularly if you listen to the media which is trying desperately to crown a winner early in the season based on results in what I believe should be the absolutely meaningless Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary. The New York Times is already speculating about what will happen to Hillary if she finishes third in Iowa.

In truth, amid all the endless permutations of outcomes that are being discussed — can Mrs. Clinton, the putative front-runner, survive a third-place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? — aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing the top tier. 

I'm sorry, but how in the world does an undemocratic event like a "caucus" that involves a small percentage of Iowa Democratic voters in the process mean a bloody thing in the long haul?  I guess if you are the New York Times, CNN, or some kind of self appointed network pundit you are longing for a result in the flatlands of the mid-west that will decide who the Democrats will choose to face off against the Republican candidate.  I can't imagine how anyone can equate a "caucus" to a real vote by registered voters who actually go to the polls and like vote. 

The cable news media should take the time to adequately explain to the rest of the country how the process works in Iowa. DesMoinesDem did a great job of explaining the weird world of the Iowa system on MyDD... you can read the explanation here.  If after reading that excellent post you are still confused then join the crowd.  A bit more can be learned by reading an article by Dan Balz of the Washington Post that still left me confused particularly when he makes statements like this...

What's good about the caucus process is that it is very personal. Candidates talk directly to the voters, often more than once, as they campaign in the state. Campaign workers contact voters constantly with phone calls, direct mail, even personal visits from young and eager field organizers.

Isn't that part of the process in any primary campaign?  I'm really frustrated by the changing polls and the significantly different polls originating on Blogs and in the media regarding Iowa.  The thing that sums up Iowa for me is that in 2004 only 125,000 Democratic Party participants (I can't use the word voters) actually made Kerry a front runner.  I'll bet we have a better turnout here in West Virginia in our Primary on May 13th than the participants we will see in Iowa on January 3rd. Our votes for a party Presidential candidate will only mean something if more than one candidate is left running.

The New York Times has a great run down on the key dates involved in the Primary process that can be analyzed here. It would be wonderful if more than three candidates are still viable by the time we vote, but the chances of that happening are slim and next to none.

Its my guess the West Virginia Primary will be all about our statewide and local candidates, and that our votes for a Presidential nominee will be basically meaningless.  We can talk all we want about how we feel about Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich or Gravel and it will mean absolutely nothing in the final tally because we are so late in the process. 

Maybe the state can do something about at least moving us up to the the Super Tuesday group maybe then our votes may mean something in 2012.  In my opinion the whole process stinks in a modern Democracy like ours.  There has got to be a better way that allows for more folks like us in West Virginia to have a say in who our candidate will be than what we have now.

There is a poll on the flip.