« Ezra's Commenters Are Smarter Than I: Politics of Man Dates | Main | If You Weep At This, May You Weep Forever »
November 30, 2007
Primary Election Reform
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Yet another reason to shorten the primary campaign schedule: Midwestern (and Northeastern!) winters are unbelievably cold. With the arrival of late August/early September conventions, there's no reason to have primary challengers battle it out in sub-zero temperatures, only to have presumptive nominees traipse around the country for eight months before most of the country starts paying attention. You could have an election every two weeks between April 1 and August 1, and as long as you averaged seven states per week, you'd be fine. Even if you just held off until March 1st, that would make a huge difference.
My secret hope is that, should Edwards not be the nominee, both parties find that they exhaust their supply of donors well before October, forcing them to rethink the long and overweight structure of modern campaigning.
November 30, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Nick - every election cycle, I think to myself "they can't possibly raise more money than the absurd amount they raised last time - I mean common sense must tell some of these rich people that they're not getting anything for the money they throw at some of these candidates." And yet, the numbers just keep rising and people keep right on giving millions and millions away, even to the sure losers. It really has got to be some of the dumbest economics I can think of.
So yeah, I hope come October they all rethink the money race. But I doubt that it will happen. A lot.
Posted by: weboy | Nov 30, 2007 8:01:49 PM
And yet, the numbers just keep rising and people keep right on giving millions and millions away, even to the sure losers. It really has got to be some of the dumbest economics I can think of.
Why is supporting a candidate whose positions you agree with an example of "dumb economics?"
Posted by: Jasper | Nov 30, 2007 8:36:11 PM
I don't see how the incentives on any group of central actors (DNC, candidates, media) can possibly change this. We have an incredibly early primary calender, because there's a race to the bottom of every state wants to be first, or as close to first as possible. Whether this is a logical desire I can't say, but they clearly have these desires and no one can reign them in.
Dean's meager attempt to reign in Florida got him nationally embarassed, and while the candidates aren't campaigning in Florida, no one seems particularly to care and I can't imagine Florida won't do it next cycle.
In fact, I'm willing to make a bet now, that the 2012 cycle will see one primary/caucus in the year 2011.
Posted by: Tony V | Nov 30, 2007 10:06:26 PM
Maybe we can have the feds pass something about 'any returns before n days before the election are invalid as primaries...
...But nothing will stop these straw polls the summer before.
Posted by: Crissa | Nov 30, 2007 10:39:09 PM
My secret hope is that, should Edwards not be the nominee, both parties find that they exhaust their supply of donors well before October, forcing them to rethink the long and overweight structure of modern campaigning.
What is the more likely?
1) Damn, we tapped out our donors, we need to restructure the campaign.
2) Damn, we tapped out our donors, we need to increase the contribution limits.
Posted by: Kenny | Dec 1, 2007 12:32:48 AM
Why is supporting a candidate whose positions you agree with an example of "dumb economics?"
Because if you give them thousands of dollars and they lose... you're just out of thousands of dollars! My God! Am I the only one who sees the insanity here???!!!
Posted by: weboy | Dec 1, 2007 1:04:28 AM
Our company is Ocala's number one source for onsite computer and network installation, upgrades & repair.
http://www.ocalacomputerservices.com
Posted by: Ocala Computer Services | Dec 1, 2007 2:44:23 AM
As the Republican Party collapses and the U.S. becomes a one party state, there will be an election, possibly as soon as 2016, when ever one knows who the next president is a full 12 months before the inaugural. A 12 month transition period is probably going to create a huge number of problems unless it is a vice-president replacing a sitting president.
Posted by: superdestroyer | Dec 1, 2007 7:24:12 AM
"And yet, the numbers just keep rising and people keep right on giving millions and millions away, even to the sure losers. "
But, the top end seems to have topped out this time. Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, and Romney all had lower Q3 totals than Q2 or Q1, and not for a lack of fundraising appearances. It really does seem like you can't actually sustain the whole prior year of campaigning.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Dec 1, 2007 10:07:38 AM
Nicholas Beaudrot:
Right, because most of the big wigs have already given to their candidate of choice. Is some millionaire going to wait till now to give his contribution limit? Of course not. If they did, they'd lose out on any back end gains(ambassadorships among them).
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Dec 1, 2007 1:30:39 PM
The only system that seems to make sense to me would be a series of regional primaries that would rotate in order over time. Everyone would get their turn at the front of the line. A mix of states would be in play. Candidates could have the benefit of regional travel and television coverage and ad buys.
You could space these over a six month period and hopefully maintain some degree of suspense and interest will into the election year. If the current race is decided in February, by November some of us are going to have lost our minds from the coverage. (I am thinking of eight months of Hillary bashing -- Jesus.)
I would think that the only ones who would object to this would be people in Iowa and New Hampshire. But really, isn't it time for someone else to get a shot at picking the nominees.
Posted by: Klein's tiny left nut | Dec 1, 2007 9:58:26 PM
Iowa and New Hampshire are the problem. They go first, they shouldn't (or, at best, should each have a 1 in 50 chance), and the other states rightfully attempt to challenge their authority by moving other primaries back.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 1, 2007 11:38:12 PM
My secret hope is that, should Edwards not be the nominee, both parties find that they exhaust their supply of donors well before October, forcing them to rethink the long and overweight structure of modern campaigning.
Isn't Mitt Romney's campaign self-financed to a larger degree than any other candidate? If so, wouldn't this give him a massive advantage?
Posted by: Cyrus | Dec 3, 2007 3:04:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
