The 2008 Presidential Primary season has re-energized debate on the U.S. system (both parties) for selecting presidential candidates. This primary season's adjustments front loaded the schedule with states hoping to have a greater influence in the outcome (i.e.: Super Tuesday evolved in Tsunami Tuesday). Fallout from this new approach includes the firestorm of debate about Democrat voters from Florida and Michigan who feel disenfranchised by a process that has created a train wreck at the intersection of party rules vs. representative government. Even with the accelerated schedule, a state like New Jersey - which changed from a June primary to a February primary - still had the field of presidential candidates reduced from about 18 choices that voters in New Hampshire had, to only ~2-3 from each party.
Here's a recommendation for adjusting the primary process so that every state has a chance to 'more equally' influence the outcome:
** Seal the primary results of each state until after all 50 states (plus D.C., Puerto Rice, etc.) primaries have been completed.
Advantages:
- Every voter from every state gets a chance to pick from every candidate in the field.
- No state has advantage in thinning field of candidate selections from states holding primaries later in the primary season.
- All candidates still get to campaign at local the level, state-by-state during primary season.
- Voters have the opportunity to base their primary vote decision more on the issues of each candidate vs. on the horse race mentality that emerges from typical primary seasons.
Disadvantages (or additional advantages?):
- Conduct a national runoff for top candidates
- Fund raising uncertainty
Finally, to really enhance the primary season, restrict polling to issues rather than today's almost nonsensical daily polling ... which means nothing - other than potentially unduly biasing voters.
Imagine that, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment