During the long primary season, I, and I am sure many others, thought about how the primaries could be better structured.
As a preamble, it must be acknowledged that at this point in time, there are only two national political parties. Secondly, the method of voting to nominate a presidential candidate, which allows one choice only (no proportional representative or second choice voting), limits the voter’s input. The two major U.S. parties are both voluntary membership organizations and pseudo-public entities. Although the two parties make their own rules as to how they wish to nominate a presidential and a vice presidential candidate, they also are subject to state election law and use public resources in conducting elections.
It has to be noted also that although traditionally American voters have made judgments in voting for president about both the person and the issues, the long primary season has emphasized the personal and de-emphasized the differences between the parties and thus shortchanged the voters. Additionally, the long primary season has demonstrated that many dollars that could be better spent have been wasted on foolish ads and television spots.
First, I don’t think that New Hampshire and Iowa need to always be the first primary and the first caucus respectively. Caucuses have limitations and should be abolished or be entirely non-binding and not paid for by the public.
A series of four to six regional primaries should replace the current system of primaries and caucuses. The regional primaries should be scheduled sequentially on a rotating basis from presidential year to presidential year with due consideration for the constraints of U.S. weather patterns. The primaries should be spaced one month apart and scheduled to be completed one month before the political party conventions.
Secondly, so long as the United States has an Electoral College, the one winner of a state primary should be binding on the state’s delegates.
Thirdly, the candidate who is the runner-up in the primaries should be the party’s vice presidential candidate unless the convention votes otherwise by a significant number, such as two-thirds or three-quarters of the delegates. By having the runner-up presidential candidate be the default vice presidential candidate, the candidates will be constrained to conduct the primary contests in a more civil manner and in a manner not to give aid and comfort to the other political party and the selection of a vice presidential candidate will be one whom the voters think as highly qualified.
If these rules were in effect, the electorate in November would have much different choices. But the suggestions here are not meant to discourage voting for the nominees of the respective parties.
All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow. All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.
Posted by petow 