Primary Solution

The other day I came up with an idea to squelch all this primary crap. I think everyone should petition their state legislature to put me in charge.

Seems to me that really it isn't fair that the same couple of states get to decide who's left by the time we get to the conventions. It doesn't really seem right that a few people in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina have such weight to throw. So when other states started to inch their primary elections earlier it certainly made sense from one perspective.

But this tit-for-tat rescheduling is a little stupid, and it looks like now we'll be having the first primary in January - if someone doesn't decide that their state needs to get on the record this year. The DNC already smacked Florida for moving their election by telling them that if they move their primary it can be as early as they want, but if they don't leave it where it is there electors won't be going to the convention.

That's one way I guess.

I mean, solving the Iowa monopoly by making the primary season 9 months long is sort of shooting yourself in the foot to stop a toothache. It doesn't solve the problem and it hurts a little bit too.

The communities that rally for the status quo are always touting their patriotism and saying they should get the first primary because they take the voting so much more seriously. Its a nice thing to say, and it even makes a little sense. Does it track?

I looked up 2004 election data. New Hampshire was fourth in turnout and Iowa was seventh. So I guess maybe they do take it seriously, but they weren't the champs. South Carolina was 50th out of 51 (the District gets a spot) only besting Hawaii - and really I think I might forget to go to vote if I lived in Hawaii. The top three? Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine. So if it's about valuing the franchise shouldn't they get to move up?

So here's the thought: Six primary dates, two weeks between primaries beginning in May. That makes "primary season" May, June, and July. Conventions in August, election in November. States vote in the order of descending voter turnout in the last Presidential election - prove you care and you move up, don't turn out and your primary moves back. First primary is one state, then two, four, eight, sixteen, and then the rest.

Really I think there ought to be a level at which you just don't get a primary. Can't turn out 50%, next time you just sit on the side. At 50% only Hawaii would have missed the cut. But maybe that number ought to be higher.

On that system this elections primaries would look like this:

May 1: Minnesota

May 14: Wisconsin, Maine

June 1: New Hampshire, Alaska, Oregon, Iowa

June 14: South Dakota, Colorado, Washington, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Florida, Vermont

July 1: Delaware ,North Dakota, New Jersey, Connecticut, Nebraska, Montana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Louisiana, Illinois

July 14: California, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, North Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, New York, Tennessee, District of Columbia, Mississippi, Nevada, Indiana, Arkansas, Texas, West Virginia, South Carolina, Hawaii

Someone still gets to go first, but if you're unhappy with your slot you can do something about it - turn out more voters. I think it might also help people keep better voter rolls, as now not knowing who's dead or who moved away can significantly effect your primary slot.

It tightens up the whole calendar, so maybe there'll be less spending (but probably not). It means that the next election might not happen in the same order as this one, which ought to help bust up primary "machines" that have to favor one candidate over another.

Anyway, just a thought.