Fixing the Presidential Primaries

Published on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 by The Baltimore Sun

Fixing the Presidential Primaries
by Steven Hill

According to a survey conducted for the Associated Press and Yahoo News, fewer than one in five voters approves of Iowa and New Hampshire’s “favored state” status in the presidential primaries, and nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.

The sense of unease is not just that many Americans question whether a handful of voters from two low-population, not-very-diverse states should have so much more influence than other Americans in narrowing the field of presidential aspirants. It’s also that the lack of a sensible primary schedule has led to anarchy.

<snip>

A national plan would establish a total of four primary days, 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 primaries would begin in March and end in June.

By starting with small states and moving on to ever-larger ones, this plan would give all states an influential role and allow more voters an effective voice. Because the big states vote last, the nominations probably wouldn’t be decided until the final day, creating a nominating process that lasts longer, allowing the public to become better informed about its choices. It also would create 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 would preserve door-to-door “retail politicking” in small states early in the season, and give lesser-known or underfunded candidates a chance to catch fire. Party members would have more time to consider whether early front-runners best represent their party’s chances of winning, and late-blooming candidates would have a chance to bounce back from early defeats.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/22/6537/

One national primary day or weekend followed by a runoff final.

Big states, small states? It's not about state sovereignty. It's a federal election.

in order to implement any change, each state would have to pass legislation to implement it.

The national political parties need to be instructed to standardize their nominating processes so as to avoid for example, the repugnant events of canceling states delegates that have been popularly elected because the parties rules were considered violated.

Political parties are bound by equal voting rights for all. If citizens realize that a political party is being discriminatory in its nominating processes against its members that party will soon lose its enrollees.

broke it. They went to court and lost.

The general election is a fereral election. The primaries are the selection of party candidate, not a federal function.

A Texas primary rule demanded large sums of money to list a candidate on a ballot and that was ruled against.

The Constitution will be changed to establish a national primary as a prelude to standardized federal elections and ballots, paper, of course.

Political parties? They can follow the Constitution and take part or just, uh - go away. Who needs them?

I read the article and found it compelling.

Something has to be done.

facing us, I don't think it is very high on anyone's list. When all is said and done, the only ones who care are probably confine to this board.

I still cannot believe that we play musical chairs to elect a President.

Good to see you IG!

that the primaries should be held in the order of States that have the highest percentage of voter turn-out in the prior general election.

If your State has the highest percentage of voter participation then your state should hold the first primary. If your State has the lowest percentage of eligible voters voting in the last general election, then your State should go last. States should be rewarded for voter participation. - Its all about voting....