As the Presidential races gather steam, there is the familiar topic of the timing and location of the primaries. Early primaries gather "too much" attention, though there was once some charm, or even value, to testing the candidates in American living rooms in New Hampshire and Iowa. Super Tuesday sought to increase the importance of Southern states. And California is always in the news because it is not sure where it wants to be on the election calendar. One idea has been to create a national primary, another is surely to rotate a set of primaries, regional or otherwise. But of course a problem with deemphasizing any one state is that the cost of entry increases for candidates, and the pressure of campaign finance is already great.
Missing in this calculus is the role of all-or-nothing primaries. In recent years the Democrats have insisted on proportional primaries, so that second-place finishers can still garner substantial delegates. Republicans have left the choice of how to allocate delegates to the states, some of which have chosen proportional schemes (60% of the vote gets 60% of the available delegates from that state, more or less) and some winner-take-all schemes. Plenty of big states are winner-take-all. Winner-take-all makes some sense if the idea is to reward in a manner that might be correlated with how the candidate will do in the general election. If the (party's) strongest candidate in California will also win in California in November, then that is an enormous prize, and that candidate should get many points or delegates in the primary/convention calculus. That is a big if, however. On the other hand, proportionality does a good job of distinguishing between fairly successful candidates and hopeless ones; a winner-take-all rule gives the fifth place finisher the same reward as the one who finishes a close second. This method would seem more likely to produce a candidate with appeal in many states, and therefore November appeal as well.
It is difficult to know beforehand which method will give the state the most attention. The winner-take-all method can cause some candidates to give up on a state, and then even that state's front-runner will spend less time on that particular prize.
It is surprising and perhaps unfortunate that we have not paid attention to linking the method of delegate allocation to the timing of the primaries and caucuses. It is plausible that proportional allocation is better early in the primary season, and that winner-take-all is superior when the field had thinned. So there is one idea: allow states to choose whether to participate in early primaries (before March 6 perhaps) on a proportional basis, or in later primaries with winner-take-all. It might also be useful to think about linking campaign finance with primary schedules. Early primaries might have stricter spending caps, hard as these would be to enforce on an in-state basis.
I'm not sure why each state even has a primary now. Why not just a national primary? It's a bit of a race to the bottom otherwise. It's not as if we are electing electors anymore. Hell it's time to get rid of states altogether so they stop undermining each other in taxes and environmental regulation, and primary timing/importance.
Posted by: LAK | March 19, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Primaries have an indirect effect of either keeping the voters home, or encouraging voters in another sister state to correct the imbalance of the other state's winner.
Usually though, as I believe to be true, it keeps the voters home, when they know a candidate has won in their region, and they don't think their state can control the outcome any differently.
The Pre-Selection Process has its own Terms and Conditions, and any arbitration amongst those states without the Pre-Selection Process would not be affective in waiving that state's primary agreement with its own general methodology, if the winner took all or if the proportional methodology was used.
Personally, the winner takes all, much like the Delaware court situation, stops the voter from making an inform choice if something comes up in the meantime.
The winner takes all is definitely not Massachusetts, right?
But an Eastern negotiation ploy, "All-for-one, and One-for-all!" Of the Three Musketeers fame!
California is a state that prizes itself of seizing the moment! Literally, then when it has an arbitrary date for its primaries.
The guess work creates voter suspense. Has anyone done a study on which state generates the most votes and who it occurs?
What are the factors that leads to getting the voters to vote?
This would be my concern.
Competition amongst the states, as long as it is not unconstitutional or against federal laws, is most appropriate, LAK.
Why would anyone care to describe our government as a dual jurisdictional one, if their was conformity over each states' taxes and environmental regulations, and primary timing/importance, etc.?
Even at that we can fight the contrarian view with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 2, and Article VI, of the U.S. Constitution, to challenge being harmed or injured by its implementation.
It is all about the exchange of money, the training of politicans, and the cozy-up to the state's contributors that makes the primaries big state business.
What is the most expensive state to get elected in? New York or California, probably.
Who dominants the scene? The auto industry, the movie industry, big oil, big banking, or Bill Gates?
Posted by: Joan A. Conway | March 19, 2007 at 02:35 PM
Why not the other way round: Winner take all at early stages, and PR later no. Then it would not be so crucial for California to rush to the front.
Posted by: BE | March 20, 2007 at 01:25 PM
The bigger question is should we be having caucuses? They are unrepresentative, undemocratic, and stupid.
Posted by: FJ Stratford | January 26, 2008 at 04:44 PM