The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Some Better Ideas For Primaries

Posted on | October 6, 2011 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

Noting the latest in the primary brinksmanship, maybe the parties could consider:

  1. All 50 states at once. No one gets a jump. Not a lot of news and vetting, but at least no one is pre-eminent.
  2. A purely random distribution. Have a meeting a year before commencement of hostilities, and treat it like a lottery. More vetting time, no one is permantly pre-eminent.
  3. Just keep on sucking pond water like you do.

Yeah, it’ll likely be #3.

Category: Election 2012

Comments

12 Responses to “Some Better Ideas For Primaries”

  1. Anonymous
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:56 am

    “Just keep on sucking pond water raw sewage like you do.”
     
    FTFY

  2. ThePaganTemple
    October 6th, 2011 @ 11:09 am

    First, kindly remind New Hampshire that the rest of the country is by no means bound to their “state law” and tell them if they don’t like it they can take their three piddling little electoral votes and shove them up their collective ass.

    Then, institute something like your number two. Not a bad idea.

    How about this for an idea? The first primary should be in whatever state that had the closest vote in the preceding general election.

  3. Anonymous
    October 6th, 2011 @ 11:52 am

    How about they go from the results of the last presidential election? For example, the largest % McCain/Palin got was 65.6% in Oklahoma, so in the 2012 cycle, Oklahoma gets to go first. They got 65.2% in Wyoming, so Wyoming goes second. And so on. This rewards the states who did the best job of getting votes for the GOP candidate and gives reason for weak state GOP organizations, like Delaware’s to pick up their program.

  4. Joe
    October 6th, 2011 @ 11:53 am

    I like three tiers based on # of delegates.  The smallest states go first in random but roating order, then the middle states, and finally the largest.  

    That gives starting candiates an initial forum that does not cost a fortune to run in and an orderly process that people can organize on. 

  5. Edward
    October 6th, 2011 @ 11:54 am

    Or.  You can sort the states by population size with the smallest states going first.

  6. Anonymous
    October 6th, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

    I say follow one of two sequences:

    a) go East to West following the zip code (circuit courts, reserve banks, principal meridians, travel path of Sun etc.) or,

    b) go in ascending sequence of the number of electoral votes a state carries – those under five go first, then those under ten, then fifteen, twenty and so on. 

    While the primaries may be party affairs primarily, and political parties may be private parties in theory, tax payers who bear the cost should be able to knock some sense into stupid leaders and small minds, no?

  7. Anonymous
    October 6th, 2011 @ 12:28 pm

    The number of delegates can be manipulated ad nauseum, the states not parties should be made to behave responsibly. Else an Obama style manipulation (of Michigan and Florida 2008) will become a common habit.

  8. Daily Pundit » How About These Ideas for the GOP Primaries?
    October 6th, 2011 @ 12:44 pm

    […] Some Better Ideas For Primaries : The Other McCain Noting the latest in the primary brinksmanship, maybe the parties could consider: […]

  9. Adjoran
    October 6th, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

    Any idea which envisions moving bigger states up to the front will only favor those like Romney and Perry who can raise millions before the primaries ever get started to compete in the expensive media markets.

    Smaller states give the lesser-known and not-so-well-funded a fighting chance to get known at the “retail politics” level.  Candidates like Cain or Bachmann would have a hard time if the first stops were big states.

    So if you are determined to make that change, remember not to complain about the money primary picking your nominee before anybody votes, mmmkay?

    A reasonable idea would be to let the first four keep their spots – smaller, cheaper media states in four different regions – and then let everyone else rotate in a given sequence.  Change your state’s scheduled sequence, lose ALL your delegates.

    I understand some people are afraid of New Hampshire’s powerful influence.  Perhaps over the weak-minded . . . but here are some New Hampshire primary winners who didn’t get their party’s nomination:  Estes Kefauver ’52 AND ’56, LBJ ’68, Muskie ’72, Gary Hart ’84, Tsongas ’92, Hilarity ’08 for the Democrats, and Stassen ’48, Henry Cabot Lodge ’64, Buchanan ’96, and McCain ’00.

  10. McGehee
    October 6th, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

    1. All 50 states at once. No one gets a jump. Not a lot of news and vetting, but at least no one is pre-eminent.

    No good, for the same reason that we can’t abandon the Electoral College. Candidates would ignore the smaller states altogether. Not being a resident of either California (thank God), New York (thank God), or Texas (why do you hate me, God?) I kind of like a system that forces candidates to pay attention to smaller states.

  11. Charles
    October 6th, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

    The thing to remember is that while the states that go first have some influence, the states that go later get to decide. It’s telling that only one or two states want to move up, while most are content to hang back.

  12. Paul Joslin
    October 10th, 2011 @ 1:06 pm

    My complaint exactly.

    I like the proposal to go to 5 – 10 regional dates.  If OH, MI, IN, and KY picked the same date, KY and IN would still see the candidates, since visits to them would still be carried on local news in OH and MI.  IIRC, all Republican primaries award proportional delegates so a candidate can still justify swings through smaller states.