This primary is begging for ranked choice voting. A winner take all delegate allocation tied to ranked choice voting ensures the field has both winnowing opportunities and a true majority of voters selecting the nominee. The present system of proportional allocation with its mix of caucuses and primaries, some closed to independents, is a recipe for disaster. It’s entirely possible that Sanders will continue to “win” primaries with just 30% of the vote. Whether or not one is a Sanders supporter, this outcome is neither a desirable nor genuinely democratic one. It is also likely to produce a contested convention, which would be the least democratic outcome of all.
Like Charles Blow, I also support holding all four early contests on the same day. This ensures that a black majority (South Carolina) and Latino majority (Nevada) electorate have an equivalent say to the white majority electorates of IA and NH. Making all four contests primaries is the fairest way to ensure every vote is counted (and quickly!) and everyone can participate regardless of their work or family time commitments. It would also help more diverse candidates stay in the race, so we never end up with an all white debate stage again.
While these two reforms were lost in the fight over superdelegates, they have to be implemented by the next primary cycle. Make the early round more diverse, and switch to a winner take all ranked choice method of delegate allocation. This is the only way to ensure the party nominating produces a unifying nominee supported by a clear majority of primary voters.
While it may not have been the system I would have designed from scratch, and there are a few logistical tweaks I might suggest, overall I’m happy with what we have.
Why?
I think the February contests, one state at a time for retail politics, diverse overall while starting with non-base swing states, while mixing primary and caucus methods is well-balanced.
What’s the benefit of a caucus? They seem far more difficult to both participate in and run smoothly than a primary which is so much more straightforward. Otherwise I’m fine with a rotational schedule. I acknowledge the role retail politics can play in seeing if a candidate catches fire. Also I acknowledge it’s far less likely we see a President Carter, President Clinton, or President Obama under a same day national primary.
Good old fashioned democracy a la New England town meeting – you get to go and discuss with and try to persuade your neighbors how to vote as opposed to the bowling alone model of a primary. Not sure why you brought up national primary since I didn’t. Of the three successful candidates you mention Carter and Obama got a huge boost from the IA caucus and Clinton doesn’t really count since in 1992 favorite son Tom Harkin was running and of course dominated the caucuses.
Any politician worth calling themselves a politician learns how to play town meeting and get done what needs to get done.
That old-fashioned democracy is a great social institution and a vibrant aspect of life in a tiny Massachusetts village like Dunstable (where I lived). It’s not even tried in a city like Boston, because it’s completely unworkable.
Retail politics strikes me as greatly overrated. The only way to really get to know how somebody governs is to work with them day in and day out for months or years. I think that’s one of the reasons that motivated the original indirect method of choosing Senators in the Constitution.
I’m reminded of speed-dating versus a lengthy courtship. A handshake in a ropeline or quick exchange in a fund-raiser is just not going to provide more than superficial insight into a candidate.
As much as most of us admire Jimmy Carter (and I do), he was singularly ineffective as President. His first-term defeat by Ronald Reagan led to GOP dominance of government for twelve long years. I think Jimmy Carter could just as easily be cited as an example of how the IA caucuses caused us to make a mistake.
The whole point of retail politics is precisely to be more than a quick handshake on a rope line. Candidates go into people’s homes or other gathering spots and have a chance to meet with people. You know what they say in NH – I can’t vote for someone I haven’t met 10 or 12 times.
The best retail politician I’ve ever encountered was Mayor Menino. I think everything that made him authentically endearing to the Boston electorate would have killed him as a national figure. Most awkward politicians I’ve interacted with are Markey, Galvin, and Sanders. The former two are frankly shy and somewhat introverted for the job they picked while Sanders is just as grumpy and cranky as you think. Frankly running for President has made him more youthful and irreverent than he was when I met him in 2010. He was dourly serious then.
Holding it for several hours on a Monday night is very unfriendly to working families and multi-shift workers. If we had a similar system here, only about half of my 18 year old students would be able to vote. Most work shifts after school from 3-11 to support their families. Not to mention the athletic commitments some of the other students have. Holding it on a weekend or making the day a holiday are ideas that could make them more participatory.
Yeah, weekends make more sense, or either require all businesses close by 5PM caucus night or treat it like jury duty as a civic obligation where you have to be allowed to skip work. That said, those issues are no different from towns that govern by Town Meeting.
I’m not.
I think what we’re doing now is an utter disaster, a genuine spitbath (a euphemism less likely to be moderated than its more colorful counterpart).
Giving two lily-white conservative states this much leverage over the selection of our candidates is worse than absurd.
I understand the desire to spread primary voting across a few months so that candidates have an opportunity to do at least a little bit of retail campaigning. I think the order of states should be different every year.
I also think we should take the debates away from the mainstream news media and restore them to something like C-Span or the League of Women Voters, like they were originally. This gladiatorial domination game that we have is just revolting.
I’m ok with RCV, but I’m don’t see it as a panacea yet.
I actually see to white states going first as a feature rather than a bug. This gives candidates the chance to test their vote-getting skills among a demographic that is likely to hold the center and decide the election.
🤦♂️
Sorry, I can’t decipher the image.
Christopher, I know you don’t intend it this way — but still — do you see how racist this comment is?
You explicitly state that “white states going first” is a feature. You explicitly state that in your view this “demographic” is likely to “…decide the election”.
You are saying that the white “demographic” is likely to “decide the election” and that you see that as a feature. In other words, you see it as a “feature” that black voters are pushed to the back of the voting line (shades of Jim Crow!). You see it as a “feature” that candidates who appeal to the black “demographic” are already removed from consideration by the time any black voters have an opportunity to enter a voting booth.
This comment is the very essence of white supremacy. Surely you want to walk this back — it comes close to violating the TOS of BMG.
I do not necessarily see it as a positive that white people might decide an election, but I do see it as reality. I also don’t hold these states as so powerful as to eliminate entirely the choices of other demographics. They certainly have not this year. In 2008 Obama was undoubtedly boosted precisely by winning white Iowa as a black candidate. Before then, lots of African Americans stuck with Hillary out of loyalty to her and concern a black candidate could not go all the way. Afterwards, they saw he could win white votes which lessened their concerns and allowed them to see the possibility of his winning it all. Here’s the thing – races are won in the middle by states and people who could go either way. IA and NH fit that description. I know our nominee will win deep blue states and the votes of people of color, but we need someone who can win the votes and states that aren’t so guaranteed to take it all the way in November. By allowing such voters first crack it gives us an idea about overall electability. I know at first glance my comment sounds loaded, but please allow me the benefit of the doubt and look deeper at what I am trying to convey. A heavily Latino state and a heavily black state are next in line, which I also see as a good thing.
I was reacting to your choice of language, and your clarification is helpful.
What you wrote was “I actually see [two] white states going first as a feature rather than a bug”. I read that as a positive.
It was a face plant emoji. mainly because I had the same initial reaction as Tom but I’m glad I waited for you to clarify your point. I think doing all four on the same day achieves these objectives. I’m not necessarily in favor of cutting out IA and N.H. entirely, I just think all four states should occur simultaneously. So those diverse voices can have the same impact as the white centrist voices. FWIW black and Latino voters in SC and NV strike me as fairly centrist or at least pragmatic in their voting patterns. They both voted for Clinton over Sanders.
And in 2008, Obama was trailing Clinton with black voters in SC by 20-30 points before Iowa. When he won Iowa, those numbers flipped in Obama’s favor.
If SC was on day one and Obama lost black voters by a huge margin because they were voting against him because they didn’t think a black man could win with white voters (not because they disliked him at all), then that 2008 race could have been over really early.
That’s a fair point, but what’s a system you’d think would work better?
I’m all for IRV and changing the dates. I just don’t understand why SC would be given importance. It’s got unusual voting groups and it’s a state a Dem is very unlikely to win (and if they do, it’s likely a huge blowout). NC or GA seem like better choices.
It’s just interesting that SC gets boosted as an important arbiter of diverse voting opinion but if it had gone first it might have squashed Obama’s campaign early (although I’m sure Obama could have run in 2012 against President McCain.)
With SC I think they were going for demographic balance while still being relatively small.
I could see switching the order, though I think one state at a time has its advantages too. NH and IA would put up a fight that I’m not sure is worth having to maintain their place in line, plus living so close to the NH border I very much like their position as it gives me lots of opportunity to go to events.
I actually think primaries are the best place for them since there are fewer disagreements between the candidates they are competing in a more crowded field. This ad from the 2018 Maine gubernatorial primary shows how cooperative it could be. Imagine how different this race would have been if Bernie and Warren filmed something like that.
Iowa just has to go. And this year should have done it.
I’d like to see rotating states and having two on the same day with diverse populations. One thing I don’t understand is why states that Dems have a low likelihood of winning should have an outsized say in the primary. I don’t see why SC is better than NC or GA, given trends and also bigger mix of urban and rural.
I think NM and NC as the first two states would be perfect.
But, now that we’re seeing what someone like Bloomberg may be able to do, having larger (population and geography) states go first could make it easier to cruise on self-funded ads alone. Maybe ranked choice would help ensure a billionaire can’t buy the election, though.
I think the order should be determined randomly by the luck of the draw, just like the NFL and MLB schedules are determined.
My unhappiness with the ability of a billionaire to buy the nomination is directly proportional to who that billionaire is and what he or she has already done with his or her fortune.
I’m old enough to remember when people saw how lousy Steyer and Bloomberg were doing that they assumed being a billionaire didn’t matter. It also shows the weakness of Biden as a frontrunner, which was there all along. The billionaires are both drawing their support predominately from Biden.
Neither of whom yet has any delegates or enough popular votes to count so I’m not sure why we are panicked about this yet.
Who’s panicked?
Do you see the irony of assuring us that we have nothing to worry about since only two microscopically small states have voted, while saying that you think this is a “feature”?
What I see in Mike Bloomberg is somebody who is very experienced in the art of using money to maximum advantage — especially in the context of a battle where it is clear that Mr. Bloomberg has FAR MORE than anybody else.
You’ve heard the expression “keeping your powder dry”, I assume. If one army in a battle is a long way from home and has to ship everything from reinforcements to weapons to ammunition to medical supplies across an ocean by sailing ship, and the other only has to walk a few hundred feet to get the same, then the latter can afford to lose some casualties at the start of a war. When the first army loses two dozen men, it has to wait months or years for reinforcements to arrive. When the second army loses two dozen men, it takes a day or two for reinforcements to arrive from nearby villages.
The second army is very likely to win the war, even if the first is very strong on paper before the fighting begins.
Of course Mr. Bloomberg doesn’t have any delegates yet. A microscopically small number of delegates have been chosen — yet the existing candidates have already spent a significant portion of what they’ll be able to spend in the entire campaign. Elizabeth Warren, in particular, has chosen to eschew big donors. That means that each marginal dollar that she spends on advertising is FAR MORE precious to her than that same dollar is to Mr. Bloomberg.
Do you really think that spending hundreds of millions of dollars per week in populated states isn’t going to have any impact?
We’ll see what happens. As much as I love Ms. Warren, I think she’s going to end up as our senior Senator in January of 2021. I think Mr. Bloomberg is likely to be the nominee and president.
I was inferring from comments that people think that money alone will wrap up the nomination for Bloomberg. I think it would have been nice if he contested the early states like everyone else, but I think our voters are more sophisticated than to just let him take over on Super Tuesday.
Well, we’ll see.
Did you read the front-page piece about Mr. Bloomberg published in yesterday’s New York Times?
The list of progressive organizations that he has made major contributions to is impressive — Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, Museum of Science in Boston, His philanthropic spending — $3.3 B in 2019 alone — is staggering.
He’s doing much more than just buying campaign ads. He has a long history of spending about ten times as much in philanthropic giving to related causes as outright campaign spending.
I fear you greatly underestimate Mr. Bloomberg and his influence ⁸ for better or worse.
On your point about progressive orgs receiving money from Bloomberg – he donated $2M to EMILY’s List in the past couple years and now it seems that they may be helping him.
They are apparently planning a solely anti-Bernie ad. Someone at the agency working on it leaked it and the working script is a story that tries to show Bernie being exactly like Trump. EMILY’s List said the leak was true but mentioned that the final script is still in process. The leak and swift online reaction may have put the brakes on the whole despicable endeavor. I am fine with negative ads going after records but for a group like this to attack the candidate with the most consistent and strong pro-choice record is not good – not because it would necessarily be doing anything all that damaging to Sanders but because progressive orgs should be doing better work with their money.
But, to be fair, Bloomberg may be the most pro-abortion candidate in the race. When an employee told him she was pregnant, he famously told her to “kill it.”
People seem to forget that the schedule is a two-party phenomenon with just a handful of exceptions. I WANT candidates to test their strength in states that are not going to be slam dunks in November. NM may be OK, but NC seems a bit big for retail politics.
There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the schedule has to be a two-party phenomenon. I’m not even sure it’s that hard. After all, both the NFL and MLB were comprised of two separate leagues with separate owners, stadiums, and home towns.
Some ballparks are large, some small. Some are loud, with passionate fans close to the field, and some are quiet, with apathetic fans sitting much further away. Every championship team learns how to adjust their play to whatever park they’re in.
I think professional politicians are perfectly able to do the same.
I’m pretty sure that especially the states which run primaries publicly are going to want to have both parties on the same day. There’s nothing in the Constitution about nominations or parties at all so that’s moot. I just don’t think it’s realistic for the DNC to dictate a schedule.
I’m not saying that the DNC can dictate a schedule. I’m saying instead that the GOP struggles with the same issues.
I think the two parties might well agree that a randomly set schedule was best for both parties. I think the needed state legislation would follow.
I’m a little murky on exactly what the National Committee can and cannot do, but there is no doubt that the party can set rules and enforce them by denying convention seats to what are defined as uncredentialed individuals.
This would be a big move with a lot of drama, but it is both within the realm of possiblity and called for.
Well, the DNC IS the party, and thus the body empowered to set party rules. They do have the authority to do what you suggest, but that ends up punishing the voters and I would not be a fan of that.
I’m not a fan of that either, but it is a lesser-evils question at this point.
Look, I used to live in NH and there is a lot to be sentimental about that primary. The GSers really take things seriously. But at this point I find the arguments against it compelling. And you know these tiny states are not going to give it up voluntarily.
Don’t get me started about Iowa.
I think they should make a godfather offer to IA and NH. Pair up with NV and SC or it’s over.
People don’t seem to get how entrenched this is in our political culture and I for one don’t think it’s worth the fight. NH law requires their primary be at least 7 days prior to any other. You will pry FITN status from SoS Bill Gardner’s cold dead hands!
Gardner almost lost his last SoS election by four votes in the state legislature. Maybe he’ll finally go away. Incidentally you’d love Stranglehold, the NHPR podcast on the primary.
Yes, the person running against him is a college friend of mine, who I’m pretty sure also favors FITN. He’d have no chance if he didn’t.
@That ends up punishing the voters …:
By that standard, no policy would EVER change.
If it’s punishment to not be first, then the current policy punishes all but a tiny slice of Democratic voters. How is that fair? Isn’t it time to let other voters besides Democrats in IA and NH have chance to go first? Haven’t they been punished long enough?
I’ll try and resist the temptation to drill down into the implications of your proposed statement for minority voters — other than to say that you have offered yet another rationalization for perpetuating a policy that benefits white voters at the expense of minority voters.
What I meant is that it punishes voters to strip states of delegates when voters themselves have almost nothing to do with setting the election schedule.
@voters themselves have almost nothing to do with setting the election schedule:
You say that the NH primary can’t be changed because it’s state law. Then you say that changing it would punish the voters because the voters have almost nothing to do with setting the election schedule.
Which is it, my friend? If the voters of NH don’t make or change the law requiring that the NH primary be first in the nation, then who does?
That law was not handed down to Moses on a stone with the 15 commandments (there were 15 commandments on three stones until Moses dropped one). That law was put in place by NH voters and can be changed by NH voters.
These are nothing more than rationalizations. The primary system is just plain broken.
Well, first, I was referring to MI and FL in 2008 who moved up their primaries resulting in a half share of delegates. Second, legislatures usually make laws rather than voters and while in theory legislatures represent the will of the voters there is not always a direct correlation. The vast majority of voters will just show up to vote when they are told it’s time. Yes, NH treats its FITN status like it was handed down by Moses.
The DNC sanctioned FL and MI for jumping the line back in 2008, I think they could use similar carrots or sticks to force IA to adopt a primary and allow SC and NV to move up their schedules.
Yes, and I don’t know if you can still access BMG from that far back (Soapblox days), but if you could I think you will find that I howled in protest at the time. Besides SC and NV are already in February and pre-Super Tuesday, so they have nothing to complain about being ahead of 54 other contests.