Centerfield

You're using "rational" and "politics" in the same post. Just sayin'.

Yeah, and you talk about the states taking turns having the first primary. The idea of the states acting like mature adults, or even well-brought-up children, is "interesting." Even if the politicians were somehow removed from the discussion (say all the states held a popular referendum on the subject), it still seems more likely that they would behave like spoiled children. Likewise, just sayin'.

True. But the more foolish the current system gets, the more likely folks'll be open to something sensible. I'd like to hope so, anyway. But I could be well be WAY OFF on that. Of course.

The question I wonder about is how do you do it? I'm presuming that the feds are required to leave these details to the states, so that meanss that the states have to get together on their own and make some sort of compact, or the states have to grant their fed reps the power to broker an agreement, or something.

What we have going on now is a sort of a tragedy of the commons or something, where no one can resist ruining it for everyone. I mean, if all the primaries were on the same day, that'd be a little silly, wouldn't it? Why not just have the final election?

What about the opposite: Primary Election Day nationwide? Mmmmmm... compression!

Darn it! You stole my absurd-but-logical-conclusion thunder.

Well, only way a rotating calendar would work is if the silly Iowa and New Hampshire first doctrine goes away. However, it really doesn't matter. Someone is always going to be ticked off at the process. Some state is always going to feel as if it does not have enough input.

I can understand state like California and Texas wanting more say in the nomination. They are essentially irrelevant in the general election because their electoral choice is pretty much a foregone conclusion. States like Florida and Ohio will dominate in the general election, so it could be argued that it might be good to hear from them early too. A lot of it is over money, though. The early states score a lot of cash spent in the states on advertising. A state like California is a net exporter of cash in elections. Florida exports in the primary season; but gets a lot in the September to November time frame.

Now a National primary day would likely shift the load to the high delegate states, along with their money. So you can be assured that Iowa and New Hampshire will fight to keep their every four year pot of gold.

Right, NH and Iowa will fight, but the more compressed the schedule gets, the smaller the pot to defend. California is only one state planning to move further back. NH will have little left to defend if all the primaries are done by the April's fool day.

Rules like "we have to be first" can lead to some foolish contradictions. What do you do if two people have contracts saying they get paid $1 more than the other? What does NH do if they have a "we have to be first law" and some other state passes a "same day as NH" law. Punt, that's what.

I think a national primary day is a terrible idea, by the way. I'd much rather see a new system with a defined reasonable period (3 or 4 months, maybe?) and a rotation among the "top" spots. It might be nice to come with a pattern where each rotating group includes states of various sizes, political leanings, and geographic locations.

This probably isn't an original idea, but I haven't seen it before. Why not divide the country in 4-6 regions, and have each region represented each Tuesday in a primary. For example, New Hampshire, Iowa, Arizona, and South Carolina might be the first week. The second week might be Pennyslvania, Washington, New Mexico and Louisiana. The third week might be Vermont, Montana, Oklahoma, and Georgia. And then the fourth week, Super Tuesday: New York, Califoria, Texas and Florida.

I know that the obstacles to such a system are overwhelming, but if we let each part of the country have a say each week, it seems less likely to me that one candidate could eliminate the competition early.

I know that the obstacles to such a system are overwhelming

Namely that you're essentially calling for a mandated federal solution regarding something that is entirely state's perogative?

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. U.S. Const. Art II Sec I

See also Article I, Section 4. Congress can set the date for THE national election, primaries are up to the states. I can name some state legislatures that will not surrender that privilege to the federal government. Like, about fifty of 'em.

States making such an agreement voluntarily? Fuggedaboutit.

sounds like some fresh thinking to me.
I don't think it is out of the question for a bunch of states to make an agreement like this.

I was fairly sure the job of deciding how to hold your primary was reserved for each state, but not exactly where it was outlined. Thanks for confirming and explaining.

...you're essentially calling for a mandated federal solution

Nope. Especially not essentially. I suspected that the power was not within the scope of the feds, and you confirmed it.

States making such an agreement voluntarily? Fuggedaboutit.

Well, an uphill climb, anyway. But let's not lose sight of the compression trend here. If and when bigger and more electorally powerful states move further back in the calendar, the prominence of places like Iowa and New Hampshire WILL be diminished unless some folks get together to protect it.

As you point out, each state has sovereignty only over its own practices. And the only power the feds have is occasional backroom armtwisting to discourage a given state from usurping tradition. It seems to me that its only a matter of time before the larger states are no longer able to resist the temptation to elbow their way to the front of the chorus line. Sooner or later, "because we can" becomes reason enough, especially if the rewards are high and the penalties minimal.

Sure, we'll need a mediator or broker to make it happen, and we may have to wait until NH and IA get the shaft before enough folks can read the handwriting on the wall. And sure, I'm just guessing about where the trend is headed, but I can count 47 states who won't want FL, TX, and CA to dominate the primary process and make outsider/underdog candidacies even harder. That's the crux of what I am pointing out, that if the trend moves towards the bigger states hogging the spotlight, the rest of the states will come to understand the virtue of sharing it.

In addition, I think a reformed process would have merit on its face. Voters in some substantial number of states (mine included, MA) have very little chance to impact the national primary race, and voters in reliably red or reliably blue states often choose whether to vote in the face of a situtaion where the recipient of their state's electoral votes is a foregone conclusion. Even if the improvement is marginal, I think that increasing the likelihood that a given voter feels that he or she has had a meaningful say at some point in the process is a good thing.

That first comment was addressed to Todd, not you, Brian, as indicated by the direct quote referenced. State's rights in determining and holding elections are outlined in the Constitution in those two places and more generically in the 10th Amendment, and in the Constitutions of the the fifty states themselves.

The only two ways to "rationalize" the primary schedule are mandated and voluntary. And since "mandated" would require a constitutional amendment, that takes you right back to voluntary.

We've had much this same procedural discussion regarding attempts to either eliminate or end-run the Electoral College. Many or most of the same problems apply.

We've had much this same procedural discussion regarding attempts to either eliminate or end-run the Electoral College. Many or most of the same problems apply.

Very true. Such changes would be difficult. If there's any difference here, it's that a change to the electoral process would be extremely difficult, requiring constiutional amendment. In the case of the EC, most changes outside of a given state changing how it doles out its own votes are unlikely for this same reason. So complaints about the EC are in this sense, periodical evergreens...the substance of the argument doesn't really change.

So I think the thing I've been highlighting (compression) is a substantive difference, Of course, I may be overstating it. Various states have been making periodic noise about moving their primaries in my lifetime, and usually they get at least partially beaten back. Let me ask you, do you think the bigger states like California are going to successfully move closer to the front of the line? And if so, do you think other states will have little choice but to stomach it, or that they'll consider an alliance to broker what poasses for a more equitable system?

I'll grant 99.9% of your nevergonnahappenfugeddaboutit if you'll grant me a 0.1 and speculate.

If having a national primary day is such a bad idea, not counting the political hurdles of it happening, that you want to have a schedule taking several months, why not the same for the general election?

On a more general note, the primary process is about democratizing the weeding out process. The reality is that the weeding out process should be abolished entirely, not just reformed.

Scott, I'm trying to come up with plausible do-able reform that preserves and improves much of what we already have...a primary system is the stage where expanded opportunity exists for a variety of candidates to collect support, and the general election is where we choose from the two best. IMO, we are largely stuck with that, so I view what I am suggesting as an attempt to make the best of it.

I wouldn't question for a second that any number of substantially different alternative systems could do a similar job in a similar fashion, with improvements depending on what each system has been designed to honor as the most crucial goal. But I accept that for a variety of reasons (one being difficult-to-change electoral college system we have established), a radical overhaul is so unlikely as to be beyond the bounds of expectations.

The reality is that the weeding out process should be abolished entirely, not just reformed.

I don't know what that means, but I'm taken aback that you are so sure about whatever it is that you think is "a reality" connected to an obvious "should." My view is that various different electing systems all have merits and warts, and that there aren't any systems with any claim to perfection or even optimization unless you presume one very specific goal as the greatest good within that electing system.

I feel that America has a variety of goals that must be served and so the system has to strike a balance. For example, there's substantial conflict between perfect 100% democratic government and stability, which is why we have settled for democracy via elected representatives, as opposed to say, having every citizen vote on every single issue and having an election every day.

I don't know what that means

It means that all candidates able to run in the general election. With plurality voting that is not possible, since multiple candidates with compatible platforms would split each other's votes, but the constitution does not mandate plurality voting.

I'll concede that the perfect should not be made the enemy of the good. However, that does not mean that the goals of a "perfect" solution should be abandoned if its pursuit would not undermine some "good" objective.

So are you talking about a system where everyone ranks a longer list of candidates in order of preference?

I gotta say I really don't like that idea, it sounds as ill-advised as the BCS method of picking the teams for the college football championship. I think it's better if everyone understands a simple explanation of why a given candidate won. People will accept "A got more votes than B" or "B got more electoral votes than A," but will they stomach something like:

"A got the most #1 votes, but B was the 2nd choice of more folks who preferred C while A fared poorly with all those who ranked D, E , or F among their top 3 choices, etc, etc, etc."

That's why I think you have to give the people their championship game, and let the voters settle it on the field. You get a sense of settled finality that a more arcane system doesn't provide. I can only begin to imagine the wealth of dispute and discontent that would follow a ranking system.

Or were you imagining something else?

People will accept "A got more votes than B" or "B got more electoral votes than A," but will they stomach something like:

"A got the most #1 votes, but B was the 2nd choice of more folks who preferred C while A fared poorly with all those who ranked D, E , or F among their top 3 choices, etc, etc, etc."

Why is "A got more votes than B" so much easier than "more people preferred B to A than preferred A to B?" The leap in complexity from one to the other is no greater than going from having one candidate to approve or disapprove to choosing among multiple candidates in the FSU.

OH, I'll happily grant the 0.1%. Never say never--just don't hold your breath waiting on it.

If having a national primary day is such a bad idea, not counting the political hurdles of it happening, that you want to have a schedule taking several months, why not the same for the general election?

A few points: Bad idea, good idea, I didn't offer an opinion. Just that uniform simultaneous primaries are unlikely to happen for structural and political reasons. Why not the same "spread" for the general? That pesky Constitution again:

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. --Art II Sec I

$5 says the current AG could parse that to mean that
- the "time of choosing the electors" doesn't need to be a single day, but could be a week or a month,
- as long as the electors do their voting on a single day.

Am I winning any sucker bets today?

You can parse it that way if you like--same effect as if the AG did. None. The power of setting the election date is in the hands of Congress. I'd take your $5 but there's no way to settle it--snark is a lousy determinant.

Why is "A got more votes than B" so much easier than "more people preferred B to A than preferred A to B?"

Because of trust. Parsimony breeds it. Complexity can undermine it. "Preferred" is a weasel word in this case that is trying to paper over the existence of a complex and more subjective scoring system. You have to pull more subjective junk out of your butt to set the system up. Do you give 5 points for 1st and 4 for 2nd and 3 for 3rd, or do you give 5 points for 1st, 3 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd, and none for the rest? How do such decisions effect who wins?

A got more votes than B is a comparatively precise description of what happened. A person who reads this can explain what has happened.

More people preferred B to A than preferred A to B only vaguely describes what has occurred. It's debatable as to how accurate such a statement is. It leads to questions like "how did you measure this?" If we were to change to more complicated system, inevitably more people who be saying "I don't really understand how the winner is determined" and it would be easier for the disgruntled to challenge the legitmacy of the choice and progressively undermine the trust of the people in the process.

Complex scoring systems can lead to weird effects where if you alter the scoring rubric or rules for participation you may alter the outcome. That's true of any system, but the more complicated, the more likely you might get unintended outcomes.

You have to pull more subjective junk out of your butt to set the system up.

It seems like you're the one who has to pull things out of your butt. The rule for determining preference is if the ballot rates A higher than B, then A is preferred to B, whether there are zero or 100 candidates between them. It would take a world-class demagog to make that seem complex.