![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Primary Problem
The primary system for the US Presidency is clearly broken (as is most of the US political, government, and electoral system, of course). States are going crazy, trying to schedule themselves before all others - because the simple truth is that the states that hold the earliest primaries have a massively disproportional effect on who the nominees will be.
This effectively disenfranchises the voters of later states, of course. And the system desperately needs to be fixed.
An ideal system would accomplish two things:
A national primary is, obviously, the best way to make sure that every vote cast receives equal weight. The drawback is that it would be an instant process, weighted in favor of those with massive campaign warchests; the richest candidates would be able to flood the national media market and essentially buy the nomination.
Instead, why not have a series of incremental national primaries? Say, six national primaries, one every two months (I'm open to alternative schedules). The first five primaries would elect 50% of the national delegates - 10% for each primary. The final "big" primary would be for the remaining 50%. No candidate could afford to ignore any primary, since even 10% could make the difference between getting the nomination or losing it. At the same time the two-month gap between primaries would give time for candidates to struggle with and test each other, refining their positions and forcing them to respond to public concerns.
What's more, a regular series of primaries scheduled so closely together would encourage more public interest and involvement - something our system desperately needs.
What do you think?
This effectively disenfranchises the voters of later states, of course. And the system desperately needs to be fixed.
An ideal system would accomplish two things:
- Allow every voter equal influence over who will be the nominee of their party
- Create an incremental testing process, to produce the best nominee possible
A national primary is, obviously, the best way to make sure that every vote cast receives equal weight. The drawback is that it would be an instant process, weighted in favor of those with massive campaign warchests; the richest candidates would be able to flood the national media market and essentially buy the nomination.
Instead, why not have a series of incremental national primaries? Say, six national primaries, one every two months (I'm open to alternative schedules). The first five primaries would elect 50% of the national delegates - 10% for each primary. The final "big" primary would be for the remaining 50%. No candidate could afford to ignore any primary, since even 10% could make the difference between getting the nomination or losing it. At the same time the two-month gap between primaries would give time for candidates to struggle with and test each other, refining their positions and forcing them to respond to public concerns.
What's more, a regular series of primaries scheduled so closely together would encourage more public interest and involvement - something our system desperately needs.
What do you think?
no subject
1. Scrap the Elected King and go to a Parliamentary system, thus eliminating the need for the absurd cycle of Presidential primaries.
2. Scrap this idea that states should have any role in helping political parties select their candidates. Let them do as they please, and not spend state funds on it.
Or if we have to have a President and Primaries make them non-partisan and have the top three vote getters be the ones who get to be voted on in the fall.
Thing is, I'm not convinced that primaries produce better Presidential candidates than the "smoke-filled rooms" or whatever of the old days. Primaries test a person's ability to campaign and raise money, not their ability to govern.
It is odd that the system is now suddenly collapsing. Perhaps it's because this is the first time since the 1952 election that there hasn't been an incumbent President or a Vice-President competing, thus making it apparently a wide-open race. One would think this would lead to reform, but after the 2000 election there was a notion that the Electoral College would be eliminated and it sure wasn't. That being the case, I think nothing will change, alas.
no subject