New Hampshire and Iowa have served the nation honorably in their unique role as early primary states for over 50 and over 30 years, respectively. But they do not represent the whole country – they are largely rural, lily-white, and just two states out of 50. It's time to end their monopoly on the process.
But what's the right replacement? Small states are good for going first. They're cheaper, enabling new candidates to compete without gigantic war chests. And as we've seen in IA and NH over the years, they really do enable "retail politicking" -- maybe not quite door-to-door, but a lot of personal, one-on-one interactions that wouldn't be possible in, say, New York (my home state).
Below the fold, I propose a set of criteria and a full system for randomly selecting four representative small states that would vote simultaneously the day after President's Day, with a new set selected every four years. I think this system would really work. Do you? And can we get something like this implemented for next time?
A new system for Democratic Presidential Primaries in 2012
Goal:
- Preserve the traditional early-state primary advantages of retail campaigning, narrowing the field, and enabling (relatively) low-cost entry for promising new candidates
- Achieve those advantages in a more representative, rotating group of states than IA and NH.
Approach:
- Select four states randomly to hold simultaneous early primaries (or caucuses)
- The combination of states should meet basic criteria for being representative
- All four states should offer relatively lower-cost media markets
- Enforce a four-week gap between these early states and the next set of voting
- Permit (or even encourage) straw polls before and after the four-state primaries, to keep the news media happy
- Rotate the choices every four years
Results:
Sample random drawings meeting the specified criteria produced the following sets of primaries:
- Massachusetts, Indiana, Arkansas and Alabama
- Missouri, Oregon, Maryland, Arkansas
- Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado, Maryland
- Missouri, Nevada, District of Columbia, Utah
- Colorado, Tennessee, West Virginia, Vermont
Don't those combinations look more representative than always giving the early-state role to Iowa and New Hampshire every four years?
Four criteria for the four early states:
- To encourage candidates without gigantic war chests, rule out any state with more than 25% of its population in one of the half-dozen most expensive media markets in the country (at least until TV spots consume less than 25% of the average campaign budget).
- To encourage retail politicking and lower costs, rule out any state with more than 10 House seats (assuming that the number of House seats remains at or near 435)
- To ensure representation for urban voters and issues, despite relying on small states, require at least two of the four states to include one of the 40 largest metropolitan areas in the country.
- To ensure representation for minority voters, require at least two of the four states to have populations that are less than 80% non-Hispanic white (the national average is 69%)
Schedule:
Two weeks after each mid-term election (e.g., November 16th, 2010), conduct a public, random drawing to select the four states (details below). Make the selection this close to the election (14 months) so the primary season isn't quite so interminably long.
The day after the President's Day holiday (e.g., February 21st, 2012), conduct primary elections or caucuses in the four selected states. Make the vote so late in the season so that the election campaigns are not quite so long and expensive; vote the day after President's Day so that more people can participate in final day-time rallies that Monday (and to enjoy the obvious patriotic symbolism). States have complete control over the form of the delegate selection process on that day – primaries, caucuses, town meetings, whatever the state party chooses.
No other states may hold primaries or caucuses of any kind (other than non-binding straw polls) before the four-state date, or until four weeks thereafter. Approaches to enforce this rule are discussed below. The four-week gap should ensure an opportunity for additional scrutiny, debate, and thoughtful decision-making, thus minimizing pure "momentum" coronations that can come back to haunt the party in the general election.
Selection process:
Similar to televised lottery drawings, all fifty state names will be publicly drawn in an audited, certified, random drawing, and compiled into a single ordered list. The criterion with the fewest eligible states will be fulfilled first, beginning with the first state on the list. The criterion with the next fewest eligible states will then be fulfilled, beginning again with the first state on the list. And so on, until four states are selected that meet all criteria.
Regional quotas may be added to avoid too much concentration of the four selected states in one area of the country.
Enforcement:
States that attempt to hold primaries or caucuses outside of this system will have a number of enforcement action implemented against them. We're serious about this, folks. New Hampshire and Iowa have served the nation honorably in their unique role for over 50 and over 30 years, respectively. They remain eligible to be an early state, just like any other. But their rural, lily-white, unrepresentative monopoly is over.
- As was done this cycle for MI and FL (at least so far), delegates from selection processes outside this system will not be seated at the convention.
- Similar to the pressure applied against Michigan this year, all candidates will be instructed to ensure that their names are not on the ballot in those unsanctioned elections.
- Candidates who do not comply with that instruction will not be invited to participate in any party-sponsored candidate forum or debate; other organizations sponsoring such debates will be encouraged to apply the same criterion.
- To the extent that party-controlled public funding or matching funds exist, funds will be denied to states holding such unsanctioned elections and to the candidates listed on those ballots.
BTW, I think it would be good for the country if the Republicans adopted a similar system, and especially if both parties chose the same four states. But that's up to them, I don't seem to have much influence over there...
Which states meet the four criteria?
- To encourage candidates without gigantic war chests, rule out any state with more than 25% of its population in one of the half-dozen most expensive media markets in the country (at least until TV spots consume less than 25% of the average campaign budget).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Ineligible states
CA
CT
IL
NJ
NY
PA
TX
43 states plus the District of Columbia remain eligible under this criterion.
- To encourage retail politicking, rule out any state with more than 10 House seats (assuming that the number of House seats remains at or near 435)
Ineligible states
(2010 Census projection, long-term model)
See http://www.cqpolitics.com/...
CA
GA
FL
IL
MI
NC
NJ
NY
OH
PA
TX
VA
In addition, because travel times are so much longer to reach voters, retail politicking would not be feasible in Alaska or Hawaii, who are therefore (once again) left out of the process and declared ineligible (at least until frequent supersonic jet service or the equivalent becomes commercially available for those two states)
Total remaining eligible states after criteria 1 and 2 are applied:
35 states plus the District of Columbia
- To ensure representation for urban voters and issues, require at least two of the four states to include one of the 40 largest metropolitan areas in the country.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/...
13 eligible states plus DC (of remaining 35 states plus DC):
AZ
CO
DC
IN
MA
MD
MN
MO
NV
OR
RI
TN
WA
WI
- To ensure representation for minority voters, at least two of the four states must have populations that are less than 80% non-Hispanic white. Note: Iowa is 93% non-Hispanic white; New Hampshire is 95%; the national average is 69%.
See: http://www.censusscope.org/...
14 eligible states plus DC (of remaining 35 states plus DC):
AL 70%
AZ 64%
AK 79%
CO 74%
DC 28%
DE 72%
LA 63% (pre-Katrina)
MD 62%
MS 61%
NV 65%
NM 45%
OK 74%
SC 66%
TN 79%
WA 79%
Sample Selection:
A list of 51 random numbers was generated at:
http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/...
13 12 34 11 46 15 44 21 25 32 20 18 42 3 8 49 6 4731 39 27 5 9 40 14 37 51 24 16 35 36 26 17 48 7 19 22 45 33 30 41 2 50 4 10 1 43 23 38 28 29
These numbers were matched to an alphabetical list of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
Currently, the criterion with the fewest eligible states is Criterion #3, the inclusion of a significant urban center. The first two states meeting that criterion on this random list are:
Massachusetts
Indiana
The next fewest eligible states are for Criterion #4, diverse population. Neither of the previously selected states meet this criterion, so the first two additional states on the random that meet this criterion are:
Arkansas
Alabama
Result: If this random sequence were drawn on November 16th 2010, then:
Massachusetts, Indiana, Arkansas and Alabama
would hold simultaneous primaries or caucuses on February 21st 2012.
Additional similar sample drawings produced the following results:
Missouri, Oregon, Maryland, Arkansas
Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado, Maryland
Missouri, Nevada, District of Columbia, Utah
Colorado, Tennessee, West Virginia, Vermont
By inspection, these results match the goals – each four-state selection is diverse, includes both urban and rural populations, covers multiple regions, has small enough states to engender true face-to-face experience with the candidates, and do not feature vastly expensive media markets that would preclude all but the richest candidates. Let's hope that this process, or something similar, will be in place for 2012.
What are your suggestions for this process, and how can we get it implemented?