Primary Colors

pO157.

Posted to Politics on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:23:17 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Two states have held a monopoly on being the first to begin the Presidential Primary contest every four years: New Hampshire and Iowa. The 2008 election may shake things up with various states trying to move their primaries to earlier days, and candidates ignoring New Hampshire or Iowa to go after delegate rich populous states scheduled for later in the primary season.

New Hampshire has always required that it be the first to hold a Presidential Primary, at least seven days before any other state. This gives disproportionate media and candidate attention to a state with a small population and often weeds out candidates who do not place well in the first primary before they can be considered by the rest of the nation. This year, some states, such as Florida and Michigan attempted to buck that trend by moving their primary dates earlier -- ahead of the earliest party sanctioned date of Feb 5th. The Democratic Party responded by threatening to remove or "disenfranchise" all of the Sunshine State's delegation to the national convention if Florida continues to insist its primary will be held on Jan 25th.

Other states moved their primary dates up to the earliest possible moment - February 5th. Some to wield their states enormous population in the primary race, others considered it simply to avoid irrelevance. As it stands now Feb 5, 2008 plays host to at least 20 primaries, earning the nickname Tsunami Tuesday.

All of this date switching and scores of preponed primaries has caused many to question if the presidential primary system is broken. The current secretary of the Democratic Party, Alice Travis Germond, complained that the system is in dire need of repair: "This process is still a mess. Eight years ago we said it was broken and getting broker. It's now broker and getting more broker."

Critics of earlier primaries complain that pushing the start of the first votes into early January (or perhaps late December) would only elongate the misery of a national presidential race and push the time on the campaign trail between clinching the nomination and election into the better part of a year. Whether or not the system needs to be immediately fixed, and if so, how is a big topic of debate. One plan which was almost approved in 2000, the Delaware Primary Plan, calls for states to be broken up into groups based on population and then "backloading" the primary schedule. The primary groups would then be split up a few weeks apart and the elections would then become increasingly more and more important as time goes on. It would also shorten the length of time between clinching the nomination and the national convention, as well as allow smaller candidates expanded opportunities to get their name out there if initial votes do not go their way in the smaller states.

A second scheme, the American Plan, randomizes primary dates (pdf) in sections of states with similar population. The less populous areas go first which allows smaller candidates to gain support with a surprise primary victory. To avoid an early clinch of the nomination, the more populous states get primary dates later on in the schedule ensuring that almost all areas of the country get a vote that "counts" in the primary contest. The random dates of elections, coupled with spread out primary contests ensure each state gets the proper amount of attention it deserves and prevents a "Tsunami Tuesday" from forming.

Of course, to implement either of these plans it would take a great deal of nationwide co-operation during the next 4 years before the 2012 national contest, something that may be lacking if the events of the past few months are any indicator.