My colleague, Mr. Heppler posts on the scheme to move the South Dakota Primaries up, so that more attention will be given to the state. Also, more candidates will visit, and more news people will buy lunch. Jason notes Professor Schaff's scathing comments on this trend. I am of two minds about this.
On the one hand, the sober and responsible Dr. Blanchard believes that Professor Schaff is altogether correct about the damaging effects of front-loading the primary season. A long, slowly building primary season is obviously better. It gives the electorate time to weigh the various candidates, and dilutes the effect of early funding and fame. How else to weed out the Howard Deans from the almost successful John Kerrys.
The less responsible Dr. Blanchard would love to have Fox News and CNN calling him for comments. If this is bad for the Republic, well, as Sally says about Santa Claus in Merry Christmas Charlie Brown, "all I want is what I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share."
I hereby propose a reform of national institutions designed to reconcile the two parts of my own personality. South Dakota should call a national convention of state party organizations. If we could get Tom Daschle and John Thune on board, we would have some clout. The convention will design a rational primary schedule. States will be sorted according to region and population. Out of respect for tradition, the earliest three or four slots (say, in January) will go to small states. After that, a wave of states will hold their primaries and/or caucuses on each first Tuesday of the following months, ending just before the national conventions. Each wave will include big and small states, and states from every section of the country. Saint Kipling notwithstanding, the twain shall meet.
A lottery will determine which states get which month the first time round, and after that the states will rotate. Sooner or later South Dakota will get the coveted January slot. California will move around, and sometimes will be decisive. Campaign organizations will of course have the schedule well in advance, and can use it for planning. Dr. Schaff will be comforted, I think, by the slow pace of the schedule. We could call the system the Deadwood Protocol.
Of course, many states will be hesitant to give up scheduling to such a scheme. But if enough states joined on to begin with, others would follow as it became clear that this is the responsible thing to do. Frankly, almost all attempts to re-engineer the primary schedule of many states (consider Super Tuesday) have been disasters. But this one has the advantage (or disadvantage) that it aims for a sensible system and not for party triumph.
This scheme strikes me as altogether too practical and sensible to be enacted. But if by some divine influence it should be enacted, remember that you heard it here first.
Recent Comments