Proportion

I'm not sure if I'm what I'm doing is downplaying Obama's win, but if it means that I'm arguing that a win in one small state shouldn't "upend[]" the race, that the results shouldn't entail a political "earthquake," that we could maybe hold off on the paeans to the wondrous glory of Obama, that there is a certain madness in speculating about how the win (really, its coverage) could actually unravel Clinton's shot at the nomination, that it shouldn't effectively end several people's candidacies, then yes, I am downplaying it.  That doesn't mean I can't respect -- indeed, admire! -- what Obama managed to do in Iowa.  Because I do.  I just think a sense of proportion is in order. 

For some reason, lots of smart folks seem to be okay with the possibility that this could actually constitute the upending that people are writing about.  Few people seem to be bothered that this result could be out of step with the fairly strong preference that Democrats across the country express in polls.  Now, the primaries are dynamic things, and I'm not saying that just because someone is ahead at a given moment, any change is therefore unjustifiable.  I just think that if it comes about substantially because of "momentum" (i.e., pundits writing circularly about momentum, every newspaper and cable channel treating these results as if it were D-Day, etc.), and if it comes about because Iowa is arbitrarily at the front of the nomination process, then I think that's some cause for concern.  We should all consider what things would be like if, in lieu of the outright madness we've seen in the coverage of Iowa, we saw, instead, a segment or two on cable (rather than ridiculous "countdowns" and blanket coverage) and a story reporting the results in the inside of our papers (rather than above-the-fold, page one stories all over the country).  Would that be so crazy?  And would that kind of sensible media coverage have the outsized effect that this saturation very well could?

I think the Times ed board deserves praise for taking the opportunity today to urge the parties to "wake up and end the undemocratic system in which the choice of a new president rests far too heavily on nonbinding votes in January by voters that don’t necessarily represent the rest of the country."  Regional primaries in rotating orders, as they argue, would seem to be an improvement.

Comments

[Sir Charles]

I am totally for rotating regional primaries and believe the current system to be terribly undemocratic and unrepresentative of the country as a whole. I also think the coverage by the news media is execrable -- the worst kind of stupid horse race coverage one can imagine, where a candidate like Edwards, who did after all finish ahead of Hillary, can be all but ignored and then written off.

My post was about the reality of things as they are and how they will be spun by the media and the likely dynamic interaction of those phenomena.

I do beg to differ at the notion that there is a strong preference for Hillary out there. I think the poll numbers largely reflect name recognition and a lack of focus by somewhat lower information voters. I think her support is of the proverbial mile wide, inch deep variety and that there is a great deal of trepidation about her as a general election candidate -- whether fairly or unfairly.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

Well said, though I continue to point out that rotating regional primaries may be a cure worse than the disease. I really like the Dingell-Anuzis plan.

Another possibility is to just go back to putting IA & NH a good month or two before other primaries, and then fewer people will care.

[Nick Bastin]

Regionally rotated primaries won't solve anything - it's the electoral equivalent of pushing the dirt under the couch where no one will see it. All that happens in that system is you rotate which non-representative section of the US gets to pick the nominees in that cycle. Any game you play to try to make it representative would be potentially ridiculous (how many criteria do you use, how do you measure them, and how often do you readjust the regions?).

The easy solution is obviously to hold all the primaries on the same day, thus eliminating any chance that a small group at the extreme of either party will dominate the nominating process (unless they're the only ones that vote - a completely separate problem). However, that eliminates the main benefit of a drawn out primary process - that a relatively unknown candidate can get the nomination. If we had an all-at-once primary in 1992, there's no way Bill Clinton gets the nomination. Of course, I'm not convinced he could have won a primary in this environment either, given the level of fundraising required to mount a sufficiently national campaign at this early date. Even if you presume the fundraising "cut-line" is below Edwards, that's still an incredible barrier to entry. Looking back to create a historical comparison, Richardson is effectively where Clinton was at this stage in 1992, except Richardson is a footnote this year, and no one was writing Clinton off. Twice in the last nine presidential election cycles, the eventual nominee received less than 4% of the vote in Iowa. Those days have likely passed us by.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

For all the faults of the current system, I like the fact that it (1) doesn't make the race for the nomination into a fundraising contest and (2) starts with a caucus, which empowers party activists.

[Mike Meginnis]

Yeah. I'm not particularly troubled about it one way or the other, but I have to admit I like the fact that our (admittedly quite broken) system offers opportunities for people that aren't the super-funded front runner to make a case for themselves.

Who gets to be front-runner in the first place is just as deeply artificial and undemocratic as what Iowa and New Hampshire do -- only worse, because it takes place entirely in the fantasy world of the media and beltway groupthink. At least citizens are *involved* in the new decision from Iowa.

[weboy]

Again, what's broken in our system is not solved by a date book - it's solved by other, deeper changes that are harder and more complex to execute. Things like proportional delegate representation based on primary voting (rather than winner take all), reducing the influence of large sums of money, insisting that the media drop "horse race" discussions for issue analysis (and for example stop treating every five minutes of polling changes as dramatic news)... these are hard, and they are about changing things in ourselves, not just the dates. Because as some point out, each proposal on dates - regions, rotating, all at once - have flaws that help and hurt various types of candidates and distort elections. Our process is broken, absolutely. But what's broken is that we look at Iowa and care more about its demographics than the fact that the people who do show up, and do care about the process, seem serious about it. Iowa's people aren't the bad guys and Iowa isn't, necessarily, the problem.

[Sir Charles]

Neil raises a good point that is problematic about the regional primary idea. A candidate like Huckabee (just an example people -- think of a left wing Huckabee) probably couldn't break through in a setting where money thwarts retail politics.

But I do think there is a problem in always having these two states having such disproportionate influence.

[BruceMcF]

Suppose we split the states into five groups of ten states, by population ... the smallest ten, second smallest ten, middle ten, second largest ten, and largest ten ... and had the allowed start date for primaries begin in March for the smallest ten, then each two weeks add another group of ten to the states allowed to have primaries, until ten weeks later the primary calender is wide open.

Then before that, in February, we allowed caucus states to open the proceedings with a series of scheduled caucuses.

Sure, the early primary states would tend to be smaller, and more rural ... but then it would also include Delaware and Rhode Island ... and also, since they do have delegates to the convention, DC ... and it would also include NH, so they wouldn't freak out as much if they couldn't have the co-first primary in the nation ... and the gamesmanship of dueling primary scheduling would finally come to an end.

[Nick Bastin]

I'm still not sure what grouping into either regions or population groups solves. Candidates still have the burden of campaigning in 10 geographically disparate states with poor population density. At least with the regional primaries, you can cut down on the travel time.

Also, as a side note, New Hampshire would be in the second ten, so still probably complaining that it isn't first.

As another side note, roughly 55% of the US population is in the 10 biggest states, so you defer that until the last voting period. It doesn't necessarily seem bad, just something to think about.

[low-tech cyclist]

First, decide on your goals for a primary system. Then you can figure out which system comes closest to achieving those goals.

My goals are below. You'll notice an emphasis on voters. Let's not forget it's all about us, ferchrissake.

1) To the maximum extent possible, I want voters in all states to have a decent chance of affecting the outcome of the nomination process.

2) I want voters in later primaries to have time to consider what they've learned about the candidates as a result of the earlier contests, before they vote in their turn.

3) I want voters in most states to have the opportunity to view multiple debates between the real contenders, as defined by the results of the first few primaries. If a candidate hasn't cleared 5% in the first two or three primaries or caucuses, then the party should clear that candidate out of future debates until that changes.

4) There should be more debates after the winnowing down of the field has begun than before. That's when voters are paying attention.

5) Massive fundraising before the first primary shouldn't be a prerequisite for a candidate's success.

I can probably think of more, but that'll do for now.

[CParis]

I'm with low-tech cyclist on this one. As a registered Dem in a big state that moved primary from June to Feb and have received no communication from any of the Dem candidates, it makes we wonder what kind of mess we are going to have this year. Is everyone assuming we'll take our cue from IA and NH - not likely.