?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
05 March 2008 @ 01:12 pm
 
Re: this comment, I agree that the current primary system is messed up, but that's not enough to overcome my desire to see things over and done with before Obama and Clinton do too much damage too each other. (Some people have argued that all the publicity will be good for them while everyone forgets about McCain for awhile, but i'm leaning towards the notion that the slew of attack ads we're likely to see after the success of the red phone ad (or at least so the analysts claim) will just make everyone sick of both candidates.)

In any case, how's this for a primary schedule. Going with some very approximate numbers and times, you start out picking the eight sates that had the highest proportional voter turnout in some previous election. You schedule those ones first, about two a week. After finishing those, and possible with a short break for people to consider and candidates to campaign, you have three "super tuesdays," with about 14 states in each. Every year you rotate that around so every three years each state gets to be part of the first super tuesday.

The details could be varied quite a bit, but that's the general idea. The "some previous election" could be the regular election the previous year, the previous congressional election, the previous presidential election, or the previous presidential primary. They'd have to pick one and stick with it of course, but which they'd pick would depend on which election they wanted to generate extra turnout for.

This way states like Iowa and New Hampshire that take pride in being first can stay that way... as long as they're willing to work at it. I've heard that they take their responsibility very seriously and actually study the issues involved more than most voters, which is awesome if its true. However pending the development of a large scale mind reading device voter turnout is the best easily quantifiable indicator we currently have of how seriously the voters are taking the election. (That i know of anyways.)
 
 
Current Mood: thoughtfulthoughtful
 
 
 
Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debateakiko on March 5th, 2008 09:23 pm (UTC)
http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/01/levin-nelson-pr.html

Regarding Iowa, at least, it's bull. A friend of mine lives in Iowa and reported that at least several people she talked to at rallies were more wowed by someone's baby blue eyes or someone else's winning smile than by any policy matters.

I know I saw some posts elsewhere regarding the proposals for primary reform, but I'm failing to find them at the moment.
Geoffthegreatgonz on March 5th, 2008 10:04 pm (UTC)
I generally like your idea for a primary system- I've never heard the turnout suggestion before, but it seems like a good way to get Iowa and New Hampshire on board and preserve the benefits of their system.

As for the dangers of a long campaign, this Slate article suggests that risk may be overblown; there's no evidence that previous Democratic candidates were damaged by long primary campaigns.