The Denver Post joins Ken Blanchard, USA Today, and South Dakota party officials in advocating regional primaries. Excerpt:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic Party presidential nominee in 1988, describes the current system as "nuts." Few Americans living outside of Iowa and New Hampshire would dispute him. The question is: How can we fix this broken system?
Dukakis, like many other observers, favors a plan by the National Association of Secretaries of State that would feature four regional primaries, with the East, South, Midwest and West rotating every four years so a different region votes first after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. The regional primaries would be conducted in March, April, May and June.
This plan assumes that Iowa and New Hampshire still keep their one-two positions — while ensuring that their contests aren't immediately overshadowed by high-spending campaigns like those now gearing up for Feb. 5.
At a bare minimum, Congress should reform the system so that Iowans caucus no earlier than March 5, 2012, with New Hampshire weighing in on March 13 and the regional contests commencing later that month.
Otherwise, the next Iowa caucus may occur before Turkey Day in 2011. While that might seem appropriate, it would further undercut public faith in our political process.
Both Professor Blanchard and Professor Schaff have thought-provoking posts below about the benefits and drawbacks to regional primaries. Might I add a third option for consideration? Perhaps holding a single primary election day for the entire nation would be useful. The primary could be scheduled in the middle of the year and conventions can be held immediately afterward, giving candidates and parties ample time to conduct a general-election campaign. This way, no single state like Iowa or New Hampshire can tank someone's run for office and this forces candidates to present their policies (not soundbites) to voters in all states. This has the added benefits of taking an emphasis off early campaigning and removing the problem of front-loading. If a clear winner doesn't emerge, then delegates at the convention can debate and decide the winner (like things were before the Age of the Image). There are certainly disadvantages to this plan: more federal control would be exerted on what is normally considered state elections, nominees might be chosen in the smoke-filled back rooms, and populous states will consolidate power, to name a few I'm concerned about. However, in terms of presidential elections, federal control to ensure equal treatment of voters might not be bad thing. The issue of populous states carrying more weight is inevitable since they represent more voters, but this can be alleviated by not allowing a winner-take-all rule in the primaries and tasking political parties to decide.
It may not be the perfect plan, but I think worthy of consideration. This plan allows for a broader choice of candidates to a greater share of voters and restores some sanity to the nomination system. If Primary Day is sent far enough into the year, say June or July, it will shorten up the presidential campaign and force nominees to become more efficient. It has its flaws, but it's an improvement over our current system.
Recent Comments