In any primary process with a schedule there will be ‘late’ states that will likely have ‘less’ of a say. How can one propose to fix that? Elimination of a schedule, having a national primary day, would make even starting a campaign prohibitively expensive.
I had an idea about how to make the schedule more ‘fair’. Start with the following premises:
1) We have an interest in making sure that the ‘price of entry’ into the race isn’t prohibitively high.
2) Given (1) above, a national primary day would be out of the question without radical changes to how campaigns get funded are enacted.
3) Given (2) above, any primary process will have to proceed on a schedule.
4) Given (1) and (3) above, there is an interest in making smaller states first.
5) Permenantly enfranchising some states before others seems to violate a sense of fairness.
6) (4) and (5) above, are at odds. We must therefore choose the lesser of two evils.
7) I argue that the interest in keeping the ‘price of entry’ low is the higher priority. This can and should be a point of argument probably.
8) Given (7) and (5) above, the first states in a schedule should be small, but they should also rotate their order year to year.
So thinking about the above, I had an idea to order the states by size 50th largest to 1st largest. States 50 through 46 start the primary process with separate primary days, rotating the order from year to year. States 45 through 36 hold 5 separate primary days in pairs, with a rotating order. States 35 thorugh 1 vote in a super primary day.
I haven’t done a detailed analysis, but my first guess is that this system should keep the price of entry low and allow for campaigns to establish popular momentum. For a campaign to grow enough momentum to successfully do a super primary day at the end, the schedule needs to be sufficiently long. Thus we can’t go too fast from 5 the first 5 small primaries to the super primary day.
Just an idea I had.
So how about it? What do you think and how would you design it?