Thread: It's Time to Change the Presidential Nomination Process

It's Time to Change the Presidential Nomination Process
Posted by Bobby Eberle
January 8, 2008 at 7:25 am

Over the years, there have been attempts by some members of the Republican National Committee to change the process by which the GOP presidential nominee is determined. Years ago, there was talk of "smoke filled rooms" at the national convention in which deals would be hashed out to determine a nominee. As the years went on, the state primary/caucus elections become more powerful, and the nominee was determined long before the convention.

The change from "smoke filled rooms" to putting the power in the hands of the voters was a good thing. However, a new set of dynamics has been created which hurts the process and again requires changes. States at the end of the primary schedule were becoming irrelevant. So, more and more states began "front loading" the primaries -- moving them up in the schedule. As more and more states have their primaries earlier and earlier, the race for the nomination becomes a defacto national election instead of a state by state contest as it should be.


With so many primary elections and caucuses up front, only candidates with serious reserves of cash or media attention can compete. There is no time to build momentum and use that momentum to help generate new funds. Here is how the months of January and February are laid out in 2008 for state primary elections and caucuses:

January 3 -- Iowa
January 5 -- Wyoming
January 8 -- New Hampshire
January 15 -- Michigan
January 19 -- Nevada, South Carolina
January 29 -- Florida
February 1 -- Maine
February 5 (Super Tuesday) -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, West Virginia
February 9 -- Louisiana, Kansas
February 12 -- Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia
February 19 -- Washington, Wisconsin

That is a total of thirty-four states plus the District of Columbia which will hold their elections before March.

In addition to eliminating "front loading," something should also be done to reduce the artificially inflated importance of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. These two states often spell doom for a candidate who doesn't get off to a fast start, yet these two states provide only a small fraction of the delegates needed to secure the nomination. No candidate's bid for the presidency should be determined by how he or she finished in one state, yet that's exactly what we see now from the media. They pronounce gloom and doom or anoint an heir apparent after one or two contests. That is not fair and not right.

So, what can be done about it? A number of proposals have been floated by various Republican activists and party leaders. As noted in a story by the Austin American-Statesman, some of those proposals include the following:

Texas plan: Primaries would be spaced from February through May, with states and territories broken into four groups taking turns starting off the presidential election years. Under the plan, each group of states and territories is balanced by a similar share of electoral votes, convention delegates and states won by either the Republican or Democratic presidential nominees the previous election. Texas voters would act at the same time as voters in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

Delaware plan: States broken into four groups by population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-size states and finally the 12 largest states.

Rotating regional primaries: The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed regional primaries, with the order of regions changing every election cycle. While ensuring that all states in a given 20-year period would have a chance to be among the first primary dates, it would make retail politicking, or meeting voters individually, very difficult.

American plan: Also known as the California plan, it suggests randomly selecting states to hold their primaries or caucuses over 10 two-week intervals, with a gradual increase in the total population of states and territories holding primaries/caucuses.

Of those current plans being discussed each has merit and offers an approach to changing a broken system. However, something like the Delaware Plan makes the most sense. I would even consider using more groups than just four.

Under the Delaware plan, smaller states would go first in the process. This is a good practice in that 1) the smaller states (other than Iowa and New Hampshire) often get overlooked, and 2) candidates don't have to worry about a large bankroll so early in the process. Success in smaller states has just as much to do with organization as it does with money -- e.g. Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Candidates with lower name ID and money but who have a good message would have a better shot at scoring a victory or high finish and using those results to build some momentum and generate fundraising interest.

Then the candidates would move along to slightly larger states. More delegates would be at stake, but as the size of the state increases, the strategies for campaigning also change. Money becomes much more important, and candidates would have had more time under the Delaware Plan to raise money if they generated voter interest.

Former Republican National Committee member John Ryder was quoted in the Memphis Daily News as saying he sees "clear skies ahead for a reordering of the presidential primary process starting in 2012." Ryder, who advocates the Delaware Plan, noted:

"Nobody would be able to assemble a majority of the delegates until they got to that last group of states, which means that every state is in play," Ryder said. "The principal problem with the present system is that only the early states seem to count. If you hold a primary in May or June under the present system, it doesn't matter. The nominee has already been selected. The primary becomes irrelevant."

Regardless of what plan is adopted, the process definitely needs to change. By spacing out the process and going from smaller to larger states, more candidates could compete, more states would be involved, and a nominee more representative of the will of the entire Republican electorate around the country would be more likely to emerge.

Republican National Committee contact info:
Phone: 202-863-8500
E-mail: e/info@gop.com

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=637

HOW about moving everything back with the first primary or caucus not taking place till March or April. that way the american people wont have to deal with this for 20 months with debates and everything else

How about having all the primarys on the same day. The way it is now the candidates have a hard time remembering whitch lie to tell to whitch people.

Yes, have them all the same day.

Have 3 or 4 months for them to campaign - and have all primaries on the same day.

Let everyone run, who is qualified under the constitution, and let the voters sort them out.

Let only qualified voters vote and sell the electronic voting machines for boat anchors -

First off, I would like to suggest that the debates are a function of the govt. Therefore, put the airing of the debates in the hands of CSPAN and get rid of the MSM invitations. CSPAN will have to provide equal time and exposure for each and every candidate. No more monkeying around with the CFR either. This is the only way to go. The MSM is in a way an interest group and will always be looking out for its interests. The fed has to run this in order for the debates to play out unbiased. JMO.

One more thing, get rid of the Diebold machines and bring those who are responsible for corrupting those machines to justice.