An Improved Primary System
Let's face it: The primary election system sucks. Why should states like Iowa and New Hampshire have such a huge influence, when much more populated and important states are ignored? Why should uninteresting candidates have the nomination wrapped up after Super Tuesday, when we hardly even know who they are?
One of the better alternatives came from a lesser-known presidential candidate. He is so lesser-known that I forgot his name.
His idea was to have no more than 3 state primaries each week. This would last for a period of 16 weeks. The elections would be in alphabetic order by state. One presidential cycle would start with the "A" states, and the next cycle would start with the "Z" states. That would end the Iowa monopoly.
An even better approach would be to have the elections in order by the size of the state: Smallest states first.
Since it doesn't require a great deal of money to run in a small state, this approach would allow the largest number of citizen-candidates to run. They could also run in a real way, rather than just through worthless, bullshitty ad campaigns.
At the same time, the large states like New York and California would still have enormous power at the end of the 16-week cycle. No candidate could really win the nomination in less than about 14 weeks of the cycle. The huge state primaries in the last 2 weeks of the primary cycle, in places like New York, California, Illinois, etc, could reverse any trends of the first 40 state primaries.
This would also give people plenty of time to get to know the candidates in a real way, rather than just through bullshitty advertisements.
WEIGHTING
The entire primary process needs to be geared more toward winning the General Election, rather than just finding out who is the most amorphously popular in the country. To do this, individual states delegate-counts should be WEIGHTED in terms of their "redness" or "blueness".
100%: States that voted for the Democratic candidate in either of the previous two elections would receive 100% of their delegate-count.
75%: Failing that, states that have either a Democratic Governor or Senator, but who have not voted for a Democratic candidate recently, would get a 75% weight.
50%: Failing the above, States that have some minimal percentage of Democratic Congressmen would get a 50% weight.
25%: All other states.
In this way, totally MEANINGLESS, indelibly RED states would not have much say in the Democratic candidate selection. This would help to avoid the nomination of the usual LOSERS.
CAUCUSES UNACCEPTABLE
Except informally, caucuses would be TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for calculating delegate strength. A STANDARD ELECTION, using the same equipment as the general election, would be required.
A SECRET BALLOT is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED!!!
WINNER TAKE ALL
To be consistent with the November election, states should run on a WINNER TAKE ALL basis. Running a primary on the basis of who is the "most popular" is very marvy. However, that is NOT how the General Election works.
Al Gore won the popular vote by 5 million votes in 2000. Big deal. It don't count for dog patootie. The loser is the loser. It doesn't matter if you win by 100 million votes. The election is based upon state-by-state electoral college votes.
The primary MUST SIMULATE the state-by-state electoral college approach.
Having a state-by-state primary insures that the selected candidate has an understanding of electoral college politics, and is not just driven by some pie-in-the-sky notion of making "all Americans" happy. Whoopee doo.
NO DISENFRANCHISEMENT
The DNC would NEVER, under any circumstances, have the right to disenfranchise an entire state.
The disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan in this cycle is TOTALLY CRIMINAL and UNACCEPTABLE! It should NEVER, EVER be repeated!
Following these rules might help the Democrats to nominate an ELECTABLE candidate, for a change.
Draft 2: 2/21/08
Comment 5/28/09: OK, I was wrong about Obama losing. But I STILL think that Hillary would have won by a MUCH larger margin than Obama. The 2008 election SHOULD have been a total landslide, and it was not.
One of the better alternatives came from a lesser-known presidential candidate. He is so lesser-known that I forgot his name.
His idea was to have no more than 3 state primaries each week. This would last for a period of 16 weeks. The elections would be in alphabetic order by state. One presidential cycle would start with the "A" states, and the next cycle would start with the "Z" states. That would end the Iowa monopoly.
An even better approach would be to have the elections in order by the size of the state: Smallest states first.
Since it doesn't require a great deal of money to run in a small state, this approach would allow the largest number of citizen-candidates to run. They could also run in a real way, rather than just through worthless, bullshitty ad campaigns.
At the same time, the large states like New York and California would still have enormous power at the end of the 16-week cycle. No candidate could really win the nomination in less than about 14 weeks of the cycle. The huge state primaries in the last 2 weeks of the primary cycle, in places like New York, California, Illinois, etc, could reverse any trends of the first 40 state primaries.
This would also give people plenty of time to get to know the candidates in a real way, rather than just through bullshitty advertisements.
WEIGHTING
The entire primary process needs to be geared more toward winning the General Election, rather than just finding out who is the most amorphously popular in the country. To do this, individual states delegate-counts should be WEIGHTED in terms of their "redness" or "blueness".
100%: States that voted for the Democratic candidate in either of the previous two elections would receive 100% of their delegate-count.
75%: Failing that, states that have either a Democratic Governor or Senator, but who have not voted for a Democratic candidate recently, would get a 75% weight.
50%: Failing the above, States that have some minimal percentage of Democratic Congressmen would get a 50% weight.
25%: All other states.
In this way, totally MEANINGLESS, indelibly RED states would not have much say in the Democratic candidate selection. This would help to avoid the nomination of the usual LOSERS.
CAUCUSES UNACCEPTABLE
Except informally, caucuses would be TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for calculating delegate strength. A STANDARD ELECTION, using the same equipment as the general election, would be required.
A SECRET BALLOT is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED!!!
WINNER TAKE ALL
To be consistent with the November election, states should run on a WINNER TAKE ALL basis. Running a primary on the basis of who is the "most popular" is very marvy. However, that is NOT how the General Election works.
Al Gore won the popular vote by 5 million votes in 2000. Big deal. It don't count for dog patootie. The loser is the loser. It doesn't matter if you win by 100 million votes. The election is based upon state-by-state electoral college votes.
The primary MUST SIMULATE the state-by-state electoral college approach.
Having a state-by-state primary insures that the selected candidate has an understanding of electoral college politics, and is not just driven by some pie-in-the-sky notion of making "all Americans" happy. Whoopee doo.
NO DISENFRANCHISEMENT
The DNC would NEVER, under any circumstances, have the right to disenfranchise an entire state.
The disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan in this cycle is TOTALLY CRIMINAL and UNACCEPTABLE! It should NEVER, EVER be repeated!
Following these rules might help the Democrats to nominate an ELECTABLE candidate, for a change.
Draft 2: 2/21/08
Comment 5/28/09: OK, I was wrong about Obama losing. But I STILL think that Hillary would have won by a MUCH larger margin than Obama. The 2008 election SHOULD have been a total landslide, and it was not.
Labels: Politics
posted by Jack W. Orf | 7:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home