This has what I believe to be the added benefit of shortening the voting season. If we used this formula for 2012 based on yesterday’s results, the schedule would be as follows:
Primary 1 – DC, VT, HI, WY, OK
Primary 2 – MA, RI, DE, NY, ID
Primary 3 – CT, MD, IL, CA, WY, AR, AL
Primary 4 – AK, NE, KS, LA, TN, KY, NM, MI, NJ, ME
Primary 5 – NH, PA, WI, MN, NV, OR, WA, SD, TX, MS, WV
Primary 6 – ND, AZ, SC, GA, IA, CO
Primary 7 – MT, MO, IN, OH, VA, NC, FL
It might be wise to further split primary rounds 4 and 5 over a couple of weeks because the lists are so long. Another idea would be let non-state territorites go first (including DC) since they get NO say in the general, then do ten weekly primaries containing 5 states each and put them in the exact sequence of spread, calculated out a few decimal places if necessary.
What do y’all think?
Nice idea, it really is.
<
p>But.
<
p>We saw what the main worry was with the whole Michigan/Florida situation in the primary: in a primary, you do not want to give swing states that shaft. Here, that is exactly what you are doing, and it could be a disaster for whichever party did that.
…calls for both parties to have their contests on the same day in each state. I’m a proponent of having a unified calendar set by law rather than party/state anarchy that led to the problem you refer to this year.