Balkinization: The Primary Solution

The Primary Solution

Stephen Griffin

Yesterday, the NYT had an editorial on the presidential primary mess. The system has been falling apart because of the desire of states to have early primaries. The Times mentioned some prominent solutions, which basically involve being fairer to all states. Funny, I thought the point of the nominating process was to select a candidate who has the greatest chance of winning the general election. Surely some thought should be given as to how you could design the process so as to maximize the chances this will happen. Perhaps this is asking too much of careful design, but there is a possible solution to be considered. Leaving aside the knotty question of the sensitive feelings of Iowa and New Hampshire, suppose you focused on the most important states defined in terms of the general election.

My intuition is that you would be led to design the process to favor swing states. Let's say six states were to be selected for the first primary in early February (if you don't like six or February, substitute your favorite number or month). You would select the three states you won by the narrowest margin in the last election and the three you lost by the narrowest margin. Why favor those states? Because in a closely divided electorate, you want to select candidates who are especially good at winning swing states. You also want candidates to be familiar early on with the problems and views prevalent in swing states. You could complicate the formula by selecting swing states that had a minimum number of electoral votes if you like, but even states with small numbers of votes can swing the general election.

Perhaps the swing states would change from electoral cycle to the next. All the better! The first states would rotate and states would not feel left out. On the other hand, perhaps states like Ohio and Florida would lead the way each time. Still no problem because we would all acquire a better sense of where and who the median voter is. And it would be a definite improvement over Iowa and New Hampshire.

Posted 2:57 PM by Stephen Griffin [link]

Comments:

These days, IA and NH would often be among those half-dozen.

# posted by

Marty Lederman : 3:35 PM

Lederman's right. Iowa and NH have flipped between the 2 parties in the last 2 cycles, by tiny margins.

# posted by

Arbitrista : 4:06 PM

I live in California. I therefore have no vote for President, in the primary or in the general.

When proposals are made to fix this in the general (i.e., by dividing up California's electoral vote count instead of a winner take all), we get told that this would be terrible because Republicans will get some of our electoral votes.

When proposals are made to fix this in the primary (by allowing California to have its primary in the same timeframe as Iowa and New Hampshire), we are told that Californians aren't as smart and politically savvy as Iowans and New Hampshirites, that our campaigns are too expensive and insufficiently personal, and that we wouldn't select a candidate who is likely to win the general.

So the bottom line is, our vote doesn't count because some peoople have decided that the election would be "better" if it didn't.

Pardon me if I don't find that logic persuasive. You could justify disenfranchising just about anyone based on the same arguments.

# posted by

Dilan : 4:21 PM

If you allow fence sitting states to choose your party's candidates, then you end up with fence sitting candidates rather than leaders.

If you want candidates who are true to your party's principles, have the most Red and Blue states go first.

I am sure someone will rejoin that this leads to partisanship. I would hope so. I want the great issues of the day being openly joined, not obfuscated to avoid offending voters.

To hell with RINOs and Blue Dog Dems. Let the GOP be the GOP, the Dems be Dems and let the voters have a clear choice.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:07 PM

The problem is that the primary electorate is different from the general electorate. Virtually everyone who votes in a party's primary is going to vote for the party's nominee...but that's not nearly enough to win the general election. And the "median voter" for the primary is going to be radically different from the one in the general election.

Consider New Hampshire. If the ability to win the state in a general election is predicted by the ability to win it in the primary, then why have Democrats historically had such difficulty there, when the winner there wins the nomination more often than not?

# posted by

Andrew : 6:32 PM

Perhaps we should ask whether, ala Hartz, the state-based obsession is an irrational attachment, not to liberalism, but to practices rooted in a constitutional compromise that continues to keep our thinking in a straitjacket. Does it really make sense to think in terms of states as the organic units to organize presidential primaries, except, of course, for the idiocy that is the electoral college? As long as we are constructing idealized solutions, why not eliminate the role the states in the primaries altogether. After all, parties are, as William Riker noted, endogenous institutions: they are not IN the Constitution.

# posted by

Chausovsky : 7:56 PM

My personal preference is that the primaries run in at least roughly acending order of expense of campaigning. To start with the expensive states is to place such an emphisis on initial resources and media exposure, that you might as well just conduct an audit of the candidates, and poll journalists, and leave voters out of the matter altogether...

# posted by

Brett : 8:00 PM

I can think of all sorts of other reasons besides "to select a candidate who has the greatest chance of winning the general election" for why we might want to have primaries. If we just want the "greatest chance of winning the general election", why not have the general election and get it over with? Oh, yeah, because the point is for the party, those regular supporters who will be supportive again, to pick someone they like and actually want to support. That's why the number of delegates a state gets depends on the number of people in that state who voted for the party last time, not just the total number of people.

Dilan, I just moved to California from Oregon. I'm pleased as a peach that my vote counts. Oregon holds its primary in May, doesn't have enough voters to make it worth campaigning in, and is just barely consistently Democrat theses days.

You (Dilan) do bring up a really important point, though. How insulting is it to be told that we "aren't as smart and politically savvy as Iowans and New Hampshirites"? Perhaps what they really mean is that we have a lot more Latino voters? It's the only thing I can think of.

# posted by

Theo : 9:58 PM

From an overseas perspective, if you're going to have a primary system, why don't you have all primaries on the same day nationwide? That would eliminate the geographical campaigning incentives that derive from random (or non-random) timing decisions (and temptations) by individual states. It may make things harder for the candidates, but isn't it a more accurate reflection of Election Day itself?

Matthew Palmer

# posted by

Matthew Palmer : 11:04 AM

From an overseas perspective, if you're going to have a primary system, why don't you have all primaries on the same day nationwide?

Doing this would give even greater advantages to those candidates who are well-known and can generate the funding necessary for a nationwide campaign. There is an advantage to this, in that such funding will be necessary for the general election. The disadvantage is that it privileges those currently on the national stage to the disadvantage of, say, state governors or others who might not be as well-known nationally.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:21 AM

Leaving aside the knotty question of the sensitive feelings of Iowa and New Hampshire, suppose you focused on the most important states defined in terms of the general election.

"Sensitive feelings"? I wonder what an early primary in those states does percentage-wise to their annual income from tourism? I'm not saying they're black holes of no interest, but contrary to California or Florida, I can imagine that the primaries have significant enough impact on local economies that fighting to keep their early position might be worth it for more than tradition's sake.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 11:33 AM

Swing states are part of the problem, not part of the solution. And the main problem is the Electoral College. Scheduling the primaries is a secondary (word play intended) problem.

I can live with plans to rotate the primaries from one election to the next according to a system based on size and/or region. But I'm troubled by any plan that rotates primaries based on any political criterion. That includes swing states (Stephen Griffin), safe states (Bart DePalma), and cost of campaigning (Brett).

I'm ambivalent about the last of these because I'd like to see more candidates stay viable longer, and than means finding ways to offset the advantage of having lots of money early in the season.

Public financing comes to mind, combined with one national primary day. And, as long as we're dreaming out loud, a constitutional amendment adopting a national popular vote using IRV for the general election.

# posted by

Bob Richard : 12:17 PM

I would create a rule that allows no more than 2 states to go per week - and they must go on different days (i.e., Tuesday/Saturday) to create maximum media exposure.

I would also, the first go-round, have the order of the 50 states be picked completely at random. In succeeding years, the states would be divided into 2 groups: Every state that voted after there was a mathematical winner the cycle before would be put into a first group to be picked at random, and then every one else would then be put in a second group to be picked at random.

# posted by

Andy : 1:08 PM

"I can imagine that the primaries have significant enough impact on local economies that fighting to keep their early position might be worth it for more than tradition's sake."

Ding Ding ding. Give that man a star for the day.

Backing up NH in its determination is the Mass, Maine and Vermont TV media and all politicians in those states who want friendly TV coverage or with presidential hopes of their own. That last category includes every Massachusetts politician who wins a statewide election as well as Vermont governors.

Nearby states with overlapping TV coverage get heavy advertising and campaign visits to get on the 6 o'clock news before the NH, not their own primaries. The federal election financing includes state by state primary spending limits. So, advertising on Boston TV covers Southern NH and the Bangor and Portland Stations are viewed in the more northern areas. All the while, the money is not being spent on NH for election law purposes.

So there is serious money riding on a NH primary in four states with eight very self-interested Senators, four very self-interested governors, and a whole host of senior democratic congress critters.

P.S. Has anyone EVER gone to Iowa as a tourist? (Driving through on the way to somewhere else doesn’t count).

# posted by

Unknown : 2:41 PM