The Blanchard Plan

For the second time in four years, the Republican Party is in crisis mode over its presidential nomination calendar. From the Miami Herald:

Florida's insistence on an early presidential primary kicked up a storm Thursday from Republican officials in Iowa and South Carolina who are demanding the national party force the Sunshine State to pull back.

If not, GOP leaders in the two states say, Florida should lose the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa.

Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos scoffed at "idle threats" and said the state has no intention of jumping ahead of the early primary holders, which also include New Hampshire and Nevada. By RNC rules, the four states are the only ones permitted to hold elections in February.

Florida's primary is currently scheduled for Jan. 31, 2012. No one expects that date to hold, but state Republicans seem determined to go in February, even though it would violate party rules.

This is nuts. States that have early primaries get an inordinate amount of attention and influence. Barack Obama's victory in the Iowa caucuses put in him the race, while Hilary Clinton's comeback in New Hampshire temporarily revived her campaign. Because these two states have gone first for decades they think they have a right to go first forever.

Naturally, all the other states would like some of that mojo. States that go late in the year are often overlooked because the nomination has already been decided. That has resulted in "front-loading". More and more states have moved their nominating events to earlier times in the year, and Florida seems determined to follow suit.

There are obvious problems with states moving up their primaries. If everyone goes first, no one goes first. If everyone goes early, then the nomination will be decided before voters really get a good look at the candidates.

The only virtue to front loading that I can see is that it might make it hard for any candidate to wrap up the nomination. In the past the nomination process has taken months, and candidates win in part by building momentum. If all the primaries and caucuses happened early, we might end up with two or three or four candidates claiming different regions instead of one with enough delegates to ensure nomination. That would mean that the nominating conventions would become nominating conventions again, and I am not sure that wouldn't be a good thing.

We were looking at the problem four years ago, and I proposed a solution.

I [favor] dividing states into an order of five or six [or seven] groups, with a mix of regions and state sizes in each group, and with a new group moving to the top of the cue (say, the first Tuesday of January [or February]) at each election. An alternative would be to divide the states by regions, with New England going first in 2012, and then the Southwest in 2016, etc. In either case a lottery would determine the order.

This still strikes me as an obvious solution to the problem. The nomination process would take place over five or six months. Well known candidates would concentrate their resources for the long haul. Lesser known candidates would put all their chips on the first set of states, in hopes of a big win and more chips. After the first two primary dates, a viable candidate (or two) would start to gain momentum and others would drop out. By April or May, the voters would have a good read on the contenders. By rotating the state groups with each election, every state would get to go first eventually.

I dubbed this "the Blanchard Plan". For some strange reason, the RNC did not adopt it. Lately I have been getting about fifteen hundred readers a day. So I urge you: write your Congressman. Text or twitter your party officials. Urge them to adopt the Blanchard plan. If that works, I'll be a monkey's uncle. But I will be one famous monkey.

Comments

[Anthony Renli]

When I first saw your plan, I thought "This Can't Work."

Then I realized why it can't work...it makes sense and would be a reasonable, logical, measured way to deal with primaries. We can't have that.

[Donald Pay]

The plan makes too much sense to ever be enacted. What would trip it up from a conservative viewpoint is that it would require federalization of the election process. It could never be done otherwise. It would probably require a constitutional amendment as well.

I would shorten the whole process. A March start is soon enough. The whole process should be wrapped up by late May.

[Ken Blanchard]

Anthony: thanks, I think. I do agree that its enactment is unlikely. There is too much selfishness involved.

Donald: thanks for the endorsement. Conservatives would indeed object to the "Federalization" of the election process. The nomination process is the means whereby parties choose their candidates. Probably parties should be allowed to do that as they think fit.

I don't think this reform would require federalization at all. It would merely require that the parties get tired of the nonsense and recognize their own best interest. I agree that, right now, that is unlikely. It is hardly impossible.

[Travis]

Actually Dr. Blanchard, the National Association of Secretaries of State have proposed something similar called the Regional Primaries Plan that I've looked at and really like.

Check it out here:

http://www.nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=210

[Miranda]

I give one thumbs up to the plan and another to the monkey reference. Monkeys have been absent from this blog for far too long!

[larry kurtz]

You're right, Ms. Flint, I'm back; whoever wants the primary process shortened hates politics.

[Donald Pay]

KB., The primary is a progressive reform that substitutes a government run election for a party run nominating procedure. State government decides dates and procedures for primaries. Parties may be consulted, but they don't have much power in the process. In some cases the state and national party leaders disagree about procedures and dates. It's not going to happen without a federalization of the presidential primary process.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: you put your finger on the problem. The "progressive" weakening of parties benefits who? Candidates who enjoy celebrity, wealth, or both. It hurts who? Any other candidate. That's progressive, alright.

[Donald Pay]

KB, you need to read up on your history.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: Ok. But I need more than that to go on.

[Mark Anderson]

I've lived in Florida for 25 years, I moved from South Dakota. My primary vote hasn't mattered in my lifetime. I get a choice of two candidates, wow, one better than the old Soviet Union. Last election I voted for Hillary Clinton and my vote was put aside by the party, thanks. The idea is I suppose, that Iowa and New Hampshire are such a wonderful, representative section of the nation. Your solution is fine, and it will happen about the same time the NCAA adopts a playoff for college football.

[Ken Blanchard]

Mark: one better than the Soviet Union is the whole ballgame.