A PROPOSAL FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

The country has been discussing the Iowa and New Hampshire presidential primaries since last summer. Now that they are completed, following the months of anticipation, millions of dollars spent by the candidates and all of the national media reporting 24/7 from cold environs in local taverns, what do we know?

We know that the primary season began with two of the whitest states in the union.  Arguably, the only Latinos in town were the migrant workers hiding from the Trump and Cruz supporters who gathered to degrade them.  The few minorities at the polling sites belonged to members of the media and to out of state volunteers.

We know that every four years a conservative republican supported by evangelicals wins the Iowa caucuses and goes on to lose the nomination.  We know that democratic candidates, who worked the small but energetic college campuses in Iowa and called for progressive ideals that will never see the light of day, did well in the caucuses.  We know that when all else failed, singing the praises of ethanol gained some support.

In New Hampshire there is actually a traditional voting process.  But the results can be suspect because under state law any voter can walk into a polling pace and choose a primary ballot for any party. In neither contest, nor in the third and fourth contests, the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus, is there an urban area of any consequence represented.

 Thus, every four years our presidential primaries are front loaded with  ultra conservative rural republican and ultra progressive college town democratic populations.  Moderates are nowhere to be found.  The candidates are compelled to speak to the fringes of our political system in order to stay in the race. It is not surprising that outlier candidates do better in these early primaries than more mainstream ones.

No one would advocate that we return to the “smoky back room” system of choosing presidential candidates at conventions, guided by party bosses.  But if we are going to have primaries let’s make them enjoyable, representative of the general population and tied to the issues that will dominate the mainstream of political discourse in the general election.

The enjoyable part is easy.  Americans love to live vicariously through their celebrities in warmer climates.  There is nothing like watching a golf tournament from Phoenix, Pebble Beach or Doral on a snowy day to chase away the winter blues.  Or to follow ones favorite baseball team in spring training. If the early February primaries followed the winter PGA schedule to California, Arizona and Florida, the brutal campaign schedule would be more pleasant for candidates and viewers alike. In addition to warm breezes, this approach would have two of our largest and most diverse states voting early in the primary process.

There are a number of ways to make the remaining primaries more representative so that all of the United States feels part of the important business of choosing a president. I would favor what has been called the “Rotating Regional Plan” to take place after the three “sunshine” primaries above.  Under this scheme, the country is divided into four regions. Each region takes its turn voting first every four years.  The four primaries would rotate on a once a month schedule, March through June.

It is clear that the traditional primary schedule has worn out its usefulness and needs to be revamped.  It is simply not reflective of representative government to have these small states play such an outsized role in presidential politics.   Moreover, with my proposal those frozen volunteers from Iowa and New Hampshire can go to a warm climate in February to work on the campaign of their choice.