Thoughtful reader Blaine Wilson responded to my proposal for primary scheduling reform with a counter proposal. My proposal was as follows:
South Dakota should call a national convention of state party organizations. The convention will design a rational primary schedule. States will be sorted into groups each of which contains large and small states, and represents all the major regions. Beginning in January or February, one of these groups of states will hold their primaries and/or caucuses on each first Tuesday of the following months, ending just before the national conventions. A lottery will determine which states get which month the first time round, and after that the groups will rotate.
Here is Blaine's proposal:
What I propose is a single national presidential primary. I know states bundle other primaries and races with their presidential primaries, but I feel this is the way to inject some life back into the process. I would think that possibly an April or May time frame would be sufficient. It would also add some life to the national party conventions. I, for one, am absolutely sick and tired of the made-for-TV event that those conventions have become. Imagine 3 or 4 candidates rolling into town with 22-27% of the delegates needed for nomination, and a process requiring multiple ballots. It is my opinion that this scenario features the American political process at its best, not this "elected by March" nonsense that we've had to endure recently.
I think the idea of a holding all primaries and caucuses on the same day is certainly interesting, but it rests on a different assumption than mine does. Blaine thinks that the national conventions might be restored to their former function, as bodies that deliberate and actually choose the nominee. Now I have to admit that I find that a very attractive proposition. I think that in many ways we were better off when party activists, who live and breathe politics, selected nominees for the rest of us to ultimately choose among. But I am not sure that a national primary day would do the trick. It might mean that only candidates who had the money to organize and advertise nationally would have a chance, and that relatively unknown candidates would find it impossible to compete. Also, candidates would probably be forced concentrate their resources in large states and pretty much neglect the others.
More importantly, the idea of deliberative conventions is probably inconsistent with the very idea of primaries. Today the national conventions serve two functions. One mirrors the electoral college: they translate popular votes into delegates. This allows the party organizations to have a roll only as tie breakers. The second function is to allow the parties to make a one week presentation to the American public. I do not share Blaine's distaste for these events. Its the only chance for the people to get a good look at the Republicans and Democrats assembled. I think that the last party conventions played a decisive roll in the election, as they revealed that the former had a foreign policy and the latter did not.
As long as we are keeping primaries, and I think that is not open to question, I prefer a gradual season such as we have now. A long primary season provides an occasion for arguments to arise, and for candidates to stake out their positions and respond to one another's challenges. More states would get more visits, and the electorate gets a pretty good picture of each candidate as he or she works to form a national coalition.
But Blaine's proposal is certainly worth thinking about, and I am grateful for this submission.
Recent Comments