Of course, the more front loaded the system, the more Iowa and NH matter. Why the rest of the States don't understand this is beyond me.

In general, this cannot be good news for Hillary.  Neither the Iowa caucuses nor the NH primary really are set-up well for her.  The Iowa caucuses are more liberal than most of the other events in primary season, and Hillary is polling around 30% in NH - a bad sign for the front runner.  At some point I will write a diary about polling at this point in NH - contrary to what most think - they are actually pretty good at predicting when the front runner is vulnerable.

If you want to give underdogs a chance, the following criteria should apply:

1.  Small states.  States where you don't need a large organization going in and that are small enough that you can win using "retail" politics.

2.  States with inexpensive media markets.  Otherwise, early front runners with the cash have a huge advantage.

3.  States that are diverse, both with respect to race/ethnicity and urban/small town/rural.

My picks for southern states would Arkansas by quite a margin, Tennessee, North Carolina.
My specific objection to South Carolina is that as a state it skews extremely Republican.

The idea of New Mexico as the first western state kind of sucks, because Bill Richardson might run. I like the idea of Colorado and/or Nevada up there though.

Putting more primaries up at the starting gate would more than likely yield a split verdict and lengthen the campaign.  Imagine a 2008 campaign starting with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Mayland.  We might have four separate winners.  Rather than lavishing tens of millions on the 100,000 to 120,000 caucus goers of Iowa we'd split the riches.  Hey, throw in Michigan and Arkansas.  

At the very least let's make Iowa and New Hampshire the same day.  In 2004, polls indicated a split verdict (Kerry and Dean).  In 2000, another split verdict (Gore and Breadley).
Everything being equal (and I know that NH law stands in the way), scrap the caucus and make Iowa a primary.  Maybe we'd get a bigger turnout and we'd avoid the horse trading that makes most of the candidates also rans.

I READ the Des Moines Register on a weekly basis over the net for three years and on a daily basis for six months because of their outsized influence.  (Yes the paper itself is a major presence).  This is nuts.  But it is reality in 2005.  

Spread it out.  Get rid of the stupid retail politics which is NO reflection on how candidates perform in a national campaign.  Let the regional influences be felt.

Finally, thank you Michigan, the sole voice of sanity!  Thank you Senator Levin!

I don't get why small states should have such an advantage over big states. We have more people. That earns us more power.

Here's my plan:

First primary - California, Texas, New York, Florida. The four biggest states. Two liberal and Democratic, one conservative and Republican, one moderate and swingy. All very diverse (all four with big Latino populations and the last three with big black populations). All BIG.

Second - Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. The Rust Belt. Slow-growing but clout-heavy. The backbone of any Democratic victory. Also the second most populated group of four.

Third - everybody else. From Georgia to Wyoming, everybody gets their say.

Doesn't that seem fair?

As for the southern state, I disagree with Alabama; they won't vote for us in the general anyway, so why let them have a say in the primary.  I like VA or AR or MO better, since we could capture any one of them in the next.  Or what about WV?  They've got so many dems in statewide office, they're willing to give us another shot.

1. Regional diversity has been brought up every time I've seen this discussed this year -- much discussion earlier of rotating regional primaries, so that a different area goes first every four years, and here the suggestion that a state from each region should be allowed to speak up early. How should that work?

2. State size -- I see suggestions that big states should go first. I don't like that idea so much, since it makes the later states less important. If you think things are front-loaded when Iowa and New Hampshire go first, imagine what it would look like with big old Cali setting the tone. It would make more sense to me to have the smaller states go first and work up to the big'uns. But should state size be a factor at all?

3. Demographics -- should racial diversity be a factor? Should urbanization? Should a state's position be affected by how likely it is to vote for a Dem candidate at all? If so, how?

4. Length of Season -- should prim/caucs be held simultaneously or spread further out? If we're going to have "Super Tuesdays" should they be regional, to reduce the advantage of candidates with private jets? How many states should vote at once?

New Mexico
West Virginia
Nevada
New Hampshire
Maine
Iowa
Oregon
Colorado
Wisconsin
Minnesota

If you want to simulate that general election median voter, you pretty much want to find the most conservative Democratic primary you can.

Setting aside candidates' home states, the only primaries that Kerry lost in 2004 were Oklahoma (to Clark and Edwards) and South Carolina (to Edwards).  We probably would have done better in the general election with either of those candidates than we did with Kerry.  

Those states already have early primaries.  Nebraska, Alabama, and Montana are currently the most conservative states (judging by Bush's approval ratings) with late (after March) primaries.

1. States with btw 1-8 electoral votes should go first, say over a two day voting period (preferably weekends) in mid-Jan

2. Next in line would be 8-17 electoral votes, same format, but in early Mar

3. 18-26 EVs go next in early May

4. And finally all others 27 and above go in early July and by August we get our convention

• Remains competitive for a longer period of time in order to give the public a greater opportunity to engage the campaign and to become informed about the candidates.

• Results in a briefer interval between the decisive contests and the conventions in order to help people sustain the levels of public engagement and information they had attained when the nominating campaign peaked.

• Increases the likelihood that voters in all states will have an effective voice in the selection of the nominees.

• Preserves "retail politicking" in small states early in the season. Gives an under-funded grass-roots campaign a chance to catch fire and take off. Gives candidates a chance to bounce back from early defeats.

• Allows small states that are diverse, both with respect to race/ethnicity and urban/small town/rural, to participate early in the process.

During his tenure as California Secretary of State, Bill Jones (R) worked to reform the presidential nomination process nationwide, through the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and also through his membership on the Republican National Committee's (RNC) 1999-2000 Advisory Commission on the Presidential Nominating Process (chaired by William Brock).  In February 1999, the NASS endorsed the Rotating Regional Primary Plan, which was largely the work of Bill Jones and Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin (D).  The Brock Commission recommended the Delaware Plan in its May 2000 report to the RNC Rules Committee, although Bill Jones wrote a dissenting statement in favor of the Rotating Regional Primary Plan.  The Delaware Plan was rejected at the Republican National Convention in July 2000, in part due to opposition from the large-population states.  It is easy to see why.  Under the Delaware Plan, the 12 other most populous states--all the way down to Virginia--would have always voted last, by which time the nomination would often already have been decided.

To return to a more democratic presidential nomination process, the calendar of primary contests must be spread out again, as it was 30 years ago.  Specifically, care must be taken to craft a system that allows a wide field of candidates to be serious contenders throughout a significant portion of the campaign season, giving the American people more and better choices.  This can only be done by ensuring that the early primaries are few in number and are held in relatively small-population states, where it is not necessary to expend huge sums of money to wage effective campaigns.  This was the philosophy behind the Delaware Plan.  Its fatal flaw was that it permanently penalized the most populous states.  We need a plan that preserves retail politicking in small venues in the early going to undercut the power of big money by giving underfunded grassroots campaigns an opportunity to catch fire and take off.  But, we also need a plan that protects the interests of populous states.

Take a look at the American Plan (a.k.a. the Graduated Random Presisential Primary Plan). at AmericanPlan.org. It is endorsed by the Center for Voting and Democracy (FairVote.org).

The plan I propose is in line with the philosophy of the Delaware Plan, yet treats large and small states with a very high degree of equality.  My plan ensures a few small primary contests at the beginning of the season, lowering the barrier to entering the political market of ideas.  Even so, large-population states are eligible to vote as early as the fourth of ten election intervals, prior to which only 11 percent of the American electorate will have voted.  Given that California is 12 percent of American electorate, it cannot help but have a huge impact on the outcome of the campaign in most years.  The American Plan is vastly superior to the Rotating Regional Primary Plan, which, although it treats all states equally, erects an enormous barrier by requiring candidates to campaign simultaneously in one-fourth of the nation.  Only a tiny field of candidates in either major political party will have the funds to do that.

A principal problem with the presidential primary reform issue has been that, although a number of politicians have recognized the desirability of reform, there has been little political will to follow through because it has been virtually a non-issue for the media and the public.  However, the climate is changing.  The grassroots involvement that has always been lacking on this issue is gathering momentum.  Four California county Democratic central committees, one assembly district Democratic committee, the California Young Democrats, and the Young Democrats of America have endorsed the American Plan.  Additionally, California Democratic Party chairman Art Torres introduced the American Plan at the 1 October meeting of the DNC Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling (co-chaired by David Price and Alexis Herman), and also spoke about the plan at the CDP Executive Board meeting in Manhattan Beach, California the following day.  The CDP is set to consider a resolution on the American Plan at its next Executive Board meeting in January 2006.

Naturally, because of this year's Price-Herman Commission, we have been concentrating our efforts on the Democratic Party; however, we also recognize the RNC's long history on this issue, and hope to stimulate a revival of that effort.  A bipartisan strategy is essential to the success of this mission.

In its 1 October meeting, several Price-Herman Commission members expressed the sense that reforming the nomination process must go well beyond the minor changes the commission is considering for 2008.  They want to "do the whole ville," but they're worried about the party taking point on this issue and getting shot up by the other party.  The concern is a valid one.  It also exists on the Republican side, and it was a contributing factor to the demise of the Brock Commission report at the 2000 Republican National Convention.

Another sentiment expressed in the Price-Herman Commission was the lack of Republican cooperation on the issue of presidential primary reform.  This is tragicomic, given that Bill Brock expressed his frustration to me a couple of weeks ago that the Price-Herman Commission hadn't contacted him.  He remains very passionate on this issue, and he is ready to join forces with like-minded Democrats.  In a phone conversation in August, Bill Jones said that he is for any proposal that "shakes up the system."  Other former members of the Brock Commission that FairVote.org has talked to are Tom Sansonetti and Jim Nicholson.

Bill Brock has expressed an interest in getting grassroots movements going in Republican state parties similar to the one in the California Democratic Party.  Fixing the system is not a leap of faith that either party need take alone, and we can create an opportunity for them to take the leap together for 2012.  The DNC is unwilling to effect a major change for 2008, and the RNC's rules prevent it from doing so.  But what can be accomplished in the next couple of years is the creation of a climate of reform within the Republican Party to mirror the work we have begun in the Democratic Party.  If successful, the RNC could empanel its own commission in 2007 to recommend systemic changes to the 2008 Republican National Convention for implementation in 2012.  Parallel to this and for the same purpose, the DNC could empanel a successor commission to the present Price-Herman Commission.

We need a triple blue moon--RNC, DNC, and NASS--to pull this off, but we can make it happen.  We need for grassroots efforts to get rolling all over the United States.  Get active in your county central committees and get them to pass resolutions that call on the RNC or DNC (as appropriate) to establish a commission to report its recommendation for systemic reform of the presidential nomination process for implementation beginning in the 2012 presidential election cycle.  These resolutions should also call on such a commission to seriously consider the American Plan.