Presidential Primaries: Democracy at Random

We have a peculiar way of nominating presidential candidates in this country. We eliminate two-thirds of the hopefuls based on the say so of two of the most unrepresentative states in the nation, Iowa and New Hampshire. Those who survive these first tests must then run the gauntlet of one of the most extreme bastions of religious and political conservatism, South Carolina. Whoever is left after that has a chance to appeal to more typical populations of American voters. But by then the aura of "momentum" in the political horse race usually overshadows issues and substance, and a nominee is already all but anointed. This is a random and silly way to decide who gets to run for the highest office in the land. We ought to make some changes.

Some have suggested a national primary held on a single day. For 2008 many states have moved their primaries up in the calendar to have a voice before the winners become apparent. This looks like a tendency toward a national primary, but that's no better an answer than the present system. That's because the expense of running a national campaign from day one would make it impossible for all but the best-financed, party insider supported politicians to compete. There would never have been a chance for Democrats like Jimmy Carter in 1976 or Bill Clinton in 1992 or a Republican like Mike Huckabee in 2008 to compete against old-guard organization candidates or well-heeled opponents across the entire country without a huge war chest from the beginning.

What we need to do, then, is to keep the initial contest small but make it more representative. A good way to do this would be to start with four states: one from each of the Northeast, South, Midwest and West. We should avoid high-population states where it's very expensive to campaign (because of the cost of media air time) but still make sure we had enough diversity to include an industrial state, a farm state and significant representation from our two largest minority groups, blacks and Hispanics. This first round could be held around March 10. I have two reasons for the later start. First, there is no good reason to discourage participation and turnout by subjecting candidates and voters to arctic conditions in the frozen climes of New England and the Upper Midwest in January. And second, the process lasts far too long already!

I'd suggest Connecticut or Rhode Island as the Northeastern state. They're small industrial states where a candidate could practice some person to person "retail" politics with the voters. Massachusetts could serve instead. It's industrial, geographically small and more diverse, though it has a much greater population than either of its two neighbors to the south and would be more pricey to campaign in. Any of either South Carolina, Mississippi or Alabama could be the Southern state. They're small in population and have large African-American minorities. Iowa could continue to serve as the Midwestern state, but there's no reason it couldn't be Kansas, Nebraska or one of the Dakotas instead. Arizona, Nevada or New Mexico should probably be the Western state based on their small populations and sizable Hispanic components. The states in each region could even be rotated from one election to the next every four years.

The second round could be held three weeks later, about April 1. As long as we have our present funding structure this would give those who proved their viability in the initial round a chance to gather funds from their newly-discovered supporters and bandwagon jumpers and apply it to the second round. The four second-round states could be larger than the first-rounders but should still avoid the jumbo states. In the Northeast it could be Massachusetts or New Jersey, the South could be Georgia, North Carolina or Virginia, the Midwest might be Minnesota, Wisconsin or Indiana. The West is a bit of a problem, since there really aren't yet many moderate-population states there between the passel of small ones and mega-California. Washington comes closest to fitting the bill.

A third round should then go nationwide about four weeks later, around May 1. This would give the remaining two or three serious candidates in each (or every) party more time to coordinate a national campaign and visit a greater number of states. There would still be at least two months before the national conventions, sufficient time for the preparations necessary to mount a national campaign. The third round of the primaries would have served as a dry run for that in practical terms anyway.

By keeping the initial round small we would give a decent chance to less well-known and well-financed candidates to make a mark. By balancing it regionally and ethnically we would avoid eliminating contenders who can appeal to more than just homogeneous rural states. By starting the primaries later we would reduce the negative effects of bad weather. By limiting the process to ten weeks we might reduce the expense, and would more likely reduce the voter burnout characteristic of the current interminable procedure. It is time to go ahead and make our presidential selection process more representative and sensible.