Primary Reform and the California Plan
by Chris Bowers, Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 08:23:53 AM EST
One thing that did not happen at the Democratic Party Convention was an agreement, or even an attempt, to implement reform in the primary season. There actually has not been any significant reform since 1972, although at their 2000 convention Republicans came fairly close to passing the so-called Delaware Plan.
I would love to see primary reform for several reasons. (Read the rest in the extended copy).
Considering all of this, you would not be surprised to learn that I have perused many primary reform systems in my time, and even developed some of my own. However, IMHO, no other system is either as strong on its own merits or as likely to be implemented for 2012 (the earliest possible date for any new reform) as the recently developed California Plan, also known as the Graduated Random Presidential Primary System.
The California Plan works as follows:
This system features a schedule consisting of ten two-week intervals, during which randomly selected states may hold their primaries. This 20-week schedule is the approximate length of the traditional primary season. The schedule is weighted as an ascending scale based on the number of congressional districts. The actual number of delegates for each state would be set by the political parties themselves, as they always have been. The District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which also send delegates to both national conventions, are each counted as one district in this system, although they in fact have no representatives in Congress.In the first interval, a randomly determined combination of states with a combined total of eight congressional districts would hold their primaries, caucuses or convention. This is approximately equal to the total number of congressional district in Iowa (5) and New Hampshire (2), thus preserving door-to-door "retail politicking." However, these two particular states would not necessarily comprise the first round. Any state or combination of states amounting to a total of eight congressional districts could be in the first round of primaries and caucuses. This could include such ethnically diverse jurisdictions as American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Arizona, and Maryland. These jurisdictions have large proportions of people of color such as Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and African Americans, and 17 of 38 jurisdictions have poverty rates above the national average. Opening the first contests to this field of jurisdictions would empower demographic groups that the current system marginalizes.
In the second period-two weeks later-the eligibility number would increase to 16 (8 * 2). In the baseline design of the California Plan, every two weeks, the combined size of the contests would grow by eight congressional districts, until a combination of states totaling 80 congressional seats (8 *10)--nearly one fifth of the total--would be up for grabs in the tenth and last interval toward the end of June. As the political stakes increased every two weeks, a steady weeding-out process would occur, as less successful campaigns reached the point at which they were no longer competitive in these larger contests. The widest possible political debate would be fostered by this system, commensurate with the need to resolve the debate to one or two viable candidates at the end of the primary process.
Because California is so much more populous than the other states, this baseline design would allow the Golden State, which has 53 districts, to vote no earlie than the seventh interval in which the eligibility number is 56 (8 *7). This stands in stark contrast to Graduated Random System's treatment of other states. Texas, the second most populous state, is eligible in the fourth round, as are New York and Florida. The preferred modification (Mod 2A) to this schedule makes a number of adjustments in order to accommodate California. First of all, the seventh round is inserted before the fourth, the eighth round is inserted before the fifth, and the ninth round is inserted before the sixth. Secondly, the interval between the third round (8 * 3) and the now much larger fourth round (formerly the seventh) round (8 * 7) is stretched to three weeks to give candidates more time to prepare, while the interval between the eighth (formerly the ninth) round (8 * 9) and the now much smaller ninth (formerly the sixth) round (8 * 6) is shortened to one week.
Here is a table showing how this would work.Round Week CD's 1 1 8 2 3 16 3 5 24 4 8 56 5 10 64 6 12 72 7 14 32 8 16 40 9 17 48 10 19 80I simply have to marvel out how this system solves every single problem people have lodged against either the current primary system or other possible alternatives. It guarantees representation for minority and poor communities. It prevents encampment. It reduces the power of Iowa and New Hampshire, and indeed of early states in general. It allows for a rotating system of states. It maintains an important, prominent role for retail politics. It does not discriminate against populous states to any significant degree. Also, since the nominee will probably be decided just seventy-seven days from the first time votes are cast (in 2004 it took 44 days), it does not drag on for too long. Best of all, since it is based on the Delaware plan but solves the problems that led to the rejection of the Delaware plan, it has a very real chance to be implemented.
Considering the political capital necessary to remove Iowa and New Hampshire from their position, a compromise that results in New Hampshire, Iowa and DC always being the first interval might be necessary. Still, starting in 2012, I hope that we are using this system to determine nominees for the major parties. It would be a remarkable and judicious improvement on the current broken system.
Tags: Primary Elections (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
24 Comments