Some Possible Solutions to the Messy Primary System

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 20, 2008

The selection of the President of the United States of America is a very important event for our nation and for the world. While I may be bordering on ethnocentrism here, I believe that our country is the sole super-power on this planet, thereby making the leader of our nation the de facto leader of the free world.

Therefore, I believe we must make some changes in the current selection process to ensure that we truly select the best woman or man for the job. The current nominating process is fraught with potholes and obstacles that inhibit the speedy and smooth travel from candidate to nominee. The front-loading that occurs because of the heavy emphasis upon New Hampshire and Iowa – two states with their own peculiar demographics that are not at all reflective of the nation as a whole – can promote or demote potential candidates without the consent of the majority.

While many who have seen this messy process played out every four years have suggested and proposed reforms over the years, perhaps this year, the power brokers will be forced to at least consider making some long-overdue changes.
The primary challenge faced by those who would reform this process is the same challenge faced by those of us who scream for a playoff to determine the true National Champion in the NCAA Division I Football teams; that challenge is of course the dominance of political power and M-O-N-E-Y. It may sound as if I have been drinking from the well of the conspiracy theorists, but we would be blind and foolish to not see that the present situation does serve to enrich and empower certain people. That being said, I do believe that we can make enough noise to shake the branches of our political parties and, perhaps, see some true reform.

Some possible solutions to this system have been proposed throughout the years. Almost 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson introduced the idea of a National Primary Day (NPD) in 1913. While it seems to make the most sense, it does have its opponents. It would make sense because it would give each voter’s vote more relevance and hence it would possibly stir more voters to rise from their sofas and recliners and venture out to the polls. It would serve to make the candidates deliver a more cosmopolitan message, rather than making the token appearances at the Iowa State Fair’s pig-calling contest and the New Hampshire Small Town Diner.

With this past season’s Super Tuesday contest, we came relatively close to the scenario of what a NPD would look like. The candidates had to spread themselves out and send out surrogate campaigners in key states and regions, thereby broadening their exposure and enhancing their message.

The opponents of this NPD proposal cite the dilution of power from the party elite and the increasing irrelevance of the national conventions. Another problem with this proposal would be the fact that campaigns would have to be fought and financed on a national level, thus demanding larger amount of…-you guessed it – M-O-N-E-Y.

As a Constitutionalist, I am somewhat reluctant to join in on any proposal that would further empower the Federal government at the expense of the state’s individual rights. However, I am willing to admit that the day has arrived in which most of our state’s rights have already been eroded by Federal mandates.

Another proposed solution is called The Delaware Plan. According to an article on www.centerforpolitics.org this plan is the brainchild of Delaware GOP state chairman, Basil Battaglia. In this picture, the states would be grouped into four ‘pods’, according to their populations, with the smallest thirteen states voting first, followed by the thirteen next larger states, then the twelve medium-sized states and the twelve largest states voting last.

Under this proposal states would retain the right to determine whether they wanted a caucus or a primary and the candidates would all be forced to fight on to the last primary because the heavier load of votes would not be cast until then. It would also empower the smaller states by giving them primacy. This would also allow for grassroots campaigns to ‘catch fire’ while at the same time, lengthening the process long enough for the ‘survival of the fittest’ to work itself out.

Opponents to this plan argue that the plan will not remove that ‘root of all evil’ (whispered …m-o-n-e-y) from exerting its heavy weight upon the process, as candidates would have to be very well financed to run a long, national campaign.
My fellow columnist and I do not differ on the contention that the process is in dire need of repair, nor do we differ on the fact that money and power limit the selection process to a chosen few rather than the best possible person for the job.

One difference between us is that I do not believe we can ‘regulate’ our way out of the corruptible influence of money by ‘controlling the influence of third party groups and political action committees’. I believe that such ‘regulation’ is opening the door to censoring free speech. I believe that open and unrestrained discussion of the candidates and their positions is vitally necessary for an informed choice.

I also believe in the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. Therefore I am optimistic that we can work our way out of this mess with a limited amount of regulation from the federal government, i.e. through the agency of the political parties themselves - and someday soon produce a system that is fair and effective.