The current order in which the citizens of each state vote for who they want to represent their party in the presidential elections is inefficient. An early lead can establish a candidate as the frontrunner, which frequently leads to the increased publicity, donations, and the let's-rally-behind-a-winner support that can propel him to win the nomination. The problem is that the candidate best suited to win the early primaries may not be the one best suited to win the most electoral votes come election time. Under the rules of our presidential elections, the candidate most likely to win the close battleground states is the candidate most likely to be elected president. I think one can safely say Iowa will not be determining who our next president will be - Florida will.
The order of the primary states should be based on how close those states were in the previous election. The closet state should hold its primary the first week, the next 2 closest states should hold their primaries the next week, with 3 the following week and so on, with the ninth and final week having all fourteen remaining states. To make it easier for smaller states to have their voices heard earlier on, the order could be based on the total difference in votes, not the difference in percentage. It will therefore be unusual - but not impossible - that a large state like Florida would be having its primary before smaller states like New Hampshire and New Mexico. You could use a more complicated formula to further advantage the smaller sates, but I don't think that is wise.
You could also make a case that rather than starting from the closet election state, start from the one in which the party lost by the largest margin. This can help the party pick the candidate most likely to appeal to the other's party base. At a minimum, have the states that the party barely lost come before the states that the party barely won. I realize though that the party's "true believers" will likely veto such a plan to favor those voters least likely to support their core values.
All states want to be among the first to hold a primary in order that candidates pander to their special interests while struggling to become the early frontrunner. This has lead to some states competing to schedule their primaries earlier and earlier. The party's interest though is to field the most competitive candidate - the one most likely to win in November. It is the political party's responsibility to design a system that increases its odds of nominating the best candidate for a national election under the rules of the constitution. Nowhere is it set in stone that both the Republican and Democratic primaries must be held on the same day in every state. The party should declare when the primary is to be held, and if the state doesn't go along, its citizens will have no say in determining the nominee. When ruthless political machines don't act in their apparent self-interests, one must wonder "Why Not?" Perhaps it is a form of disarmament on both sides, and the Republicans and Democrats both agree to follow the same inefficient system. It seems though that Democrats are more likely to vote for whom they want, rather than whom they think the country would be more likely to elect. A change in the order of the primaries should help them quite a bit.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Cool idea but by what authority could it be enforced? The Constitution clearly leaves election decisions to the states, the the Federal government could not write new laws saying when they do thier primaries, especially considering that they are not even "real elections." There is no authority to tell the states, the political parties, or the state political parties when to do it.
As for the frontrunner grabbing the lead and running away with it, I think you give the voters too little credit.
The Constitution says nothing about political parties and how they choose their nominees. A political party would be well within its right to decide on a formula to determine the order of when its primaries will be held in each state. If any state disagrees, the party has no obligation to allow the citizens of that state to vote in the primary altogether.
As for giving voters too little credit, why do you think the Federal government spends good money to turn good corn into ethanol? The Iowa caucus is certainly one reason. Bill Bradley changed his mind on ethanol a short while before deciding to run for president. Coincidence? Or was he inspired by how Jimmy Carter rose from obscurity to frontrunner in Iowa?
I actually prefer moving all primaries to the same date. You can achieve that at a state level (one state at a time). It would require candiates to campaign in all 50 states before the primaries, so some sort of campaign finance rules would also need to apply. However, this would take away the problem of letting New Hampshire pick the candidates and give later states a say.
Having all the state primaries on the same day has both advantages and disadvantages. If they do keep the current system of spreading them out over time, they need a fair and equitable way to determine which states come first. The advantage of having the closest states of the last election come first is that it can help the party nominate the candidate most likely to win those key states.
If they decide to keep the current order, there are other ways to improve things. One way is to require that the earlier states divide their votes for the primary based on the percentage each candidate received. The value of winning those early states would therefore be greatly reduced, which would hopefully diminish the media hype that is associated with them.