Primary system is awful. What about this fix?

This guy has an interesting idea about how to make the primary system more fair.

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/forum/268152&ntpid=1

A national plan would establish a total of four primaries, each held a month apart. The states would be grouped into four clusters, by population.

The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories and the District of Columbia, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-size states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four primaries would begin in March and end in June.

First, by starting with small states and moving on to ever larger ones, it gives all states an influential role and allows more voters an effective voice. The big states would vote last, but since they hold the most delegates the nominations wouldn 't be decided until the final day.

Second, it accomplishes the recommendation of the Vanishing Voter Project at Harvard 's Kennedy School of Government, that a nominating process should "remain competitive for a longer period of time in order to give the public a greater opportunity to engage the campaign and to become informed about the candidates. "

It also creates a shorter interval between the primary season and the nominating conventions in the summer, helping to sustain the public 's level of engagement.

Finally, a national plan preserves door-to-door "retail politicking " in small states early in the season, and gives lesser-known or under-funded candidates a chance to catch fire. Party members would have more time to consider whether early frontrunners best represent their party 's chances of winning, and late blooming candidates would have a chance to bounce back from early defeats.

-----

The problem with having the whole country vote on the same day is that whoever has the most money wins. This idea seems promising. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure that this really expands the field and gives us more choice

Its still a money game and I don't see how this plan changes that.

Having 12 or 13 of them at once means that someone else has a chance in other states before people start "trying to pick the winner" which I really think is how many people are starting to vote. The media circus starts and all they talk about is the top contenders to the next contest, another small state that is not really representative of the country at large. So after 3 states for the Dems and 5 for the Repukes, about as many candidates have dropped out. One state votes and someone doesn't do well, and they "lose momentum". I was disappointed to see some of the candidates I really liked drop out so soon just because of 3 little states. Ugh.

Having so many state vote at once would give some of these folks a fair shake, if they are indeed viable and have a message that appeals.

I'm sick of voting in a state where our primary just rubberstamps the eventual nominee.

I'd love to see something different. What we have now is just stupid. Just curious what people think about this.

just get a few brawls going, winner take all

We have to live with the decisions of those jokers in the states. You know the ones where the African-American population triples when the Obama family campaigns together.

weekly presidential elections

that would be interesting

Assuming we actually count them under this proposed system. Assuming we count anything.