tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3515271.post6783520788944506741..comments2023-09-28T05:59:16.626-04:00Comments on Nomad Homebody: defending the caucusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3515271.post-75653205387631807742008-01-30T20:14:00.000-05:002008-01-30T20:14:00.000-05:00Actually, I think changing the primary faces much ...Actually, I think changing the primary faces much less structural resistance than instant run-off voting (which I also support): the structure of primaries is up to the parties, both nationally and at the state level. Instant run-off, proportional representation multi-member districts, etc, would require constitutional amendments, which ain't gonna happen.<BR/><BR/>My Pennsylvanian aunt recently informed me that PA's primary isn't until April. PA is a swing state with a lot of electoral votes (and, arguably, more representative than many states), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the nominee were determined by April. If I were registered in PA, that would piss me off something fierce.<BR/><BR/>As for the specific details of the rolling regional primary scheme, I'm uncommitted--2 weeks sounds fine to me, but whatever best implements the intention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3515271.post-82758832692940147282008-01-26T08:05:00.000-05:002008-01-26T08:05:00.000-05:00That's a really good idea, and I hadn't thought of...That's a really good idea, and I hadn't thought of it. On the other hand, it suffers from the same problem as something like instant run-off voting: it's a really good idea, but there's a big institutional block to changing a system in such a systematic way. If my choices are Iowa/New Hampshire or a national primary, I'll take Iowa/New Hampshire. If a rolling regional primary manages to become an option, I'd take that.<BR/><BR/>I'd argue that you should space the regional primaries 2 weeks apart if you want to get the most retail politics and candidate involvement in all regions; that'd be expensive, but not much more so than the current set up.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I don't think the candidates who dropped out were going to do all that well nationally. There's a viable strategy of losing Iowa and New Hampshire (think Bill Clinton) and coming back strong immediately afterward, but you have to be doing well in other states; also, the current ultra-compressed schedule works against it, because you have fewer other contests to win that give you free media before the de facto national primary.Laurelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15993620199514606489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3515271.post-18138590444677943932008-01-26T01:41:00.000-05:002008-01-26T01:41:00.000-05:00I agree, but also (vehemently) disagree. A single...I agree, but also (vehemently) disagree. A single national primary has the problems you point out: cost, a lack of retail politics...it would just be unfair in a different way. But it has always seemed exceedingly unfair to me that Iowa and New Hampshire, completely arbitrarily, are the only ones who get to examine the candidates closely. It ticks me off every time a candidate drops out of the race after a poor showing in one or two completely unrepresentative states, before I have the chance to cast my vote for or against him or her.<BR/><BR/>The best idea I've heard or come up with is a rolling regional primary. Divide the country into a number of regions (5 or 10 or something), probably by state, maybe balancing delagate counts or electoral votes or something. Geographic continuity is important, obviously. Then hold a regional primary each week for 5 or 10 or whatever weeks in a row. Change the order of the regions for every election. Such a system would allow candidates to focus on one region at a time (which is cheaper than flying all the hell over the country), give each region a turn to grill candidates retail style, give each region a turn to be the one whose vote doesn't matter 'cause campaigns have already collected enough electoral votes or run out of money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com