Why I Hate Corn Farmers And Separatists

Jonathan Soros writes a N.Y. Times op-ed this morning calling for a rolling national primary, with ballots opening on January 1 and closing at the end of June, with vote counts being announced at the close of each month.

I don't particularly like this plan, mostly for logistical reasons. It's my understanding that the state parties, not the states themselves, run the primaries. Which means that now, we're asking a basically nonfunctional organization like, say, the Idaho Democrats, to be well-enough organized to keep a poll open for 6 months, with adequate resources on hand to allow for a rush of voters at the end of each month? Seems tricky to me.

For the record, I am in favor of either a national primary, with votes being cast simultaneously nationwide, or one of the regional plans, where the country is divided into 6 or 8 regions, and each region votes at the same time. If necessary, we can even rotate the order of voting among the regions.

Almost anything short of throwing darts at a board would be better than the system we have right now. The standard argument I hear for Iowa and New Hampshire's primacy is that it gives the chance for 'retail politicking', with Joe Biden giving a mini-speech in the living room of one of his supporters in Sioux City after a delicious dinner of tuna casserole, with cherry pie and Cool-Whip for dessert. Only in this sort of format can the voters really "get to know" the candidates, outside the usual forums of debates and 30-second spots during the commercial breaks in House.

Which is great, in theory. But the problem is, that's not how we actually elect presidents! I think we can all agree that New Hampshire and Iowa exert a large influence on the race. I would argue unduly large, but that might be a point of contention. Anyhow, I would analogize these two states as the first half of the regular season in a sporting event, the other primaries as the rest of the regular season, and then the general election as the playoffs.

This is like the NFL deciding 'okay, for the first 8 weeks of the season, touchdowns are worth 11 points, field goals are worth 8. For the next 8 weeks, touchdowns are worth 14, field goals 9. Then for the playoffs, we'll get back to the proper rules, where touchdowns are worth 7, and field goals 3.'

It's completely ridiculous to use 'retail politicking' to decide who gets the nomination for president, when the general campaign (the "playoffs") plays by a completely different set of rules.

I am no big fan of our current political setup, where it seems the majority of people form their opinions based on either 30-second ads or a vague notion of how much they like someone, based on their answers at debates, or 'a sense' they get from interviews, or something. But, for better or worse, those are the rules we play by. It makes no sense to use 3 different sets of rules over the course of the season.