tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post6004673251873873699..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is OverJosh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-6602413279100633532008-08-21T11:38:00.000-04:002008-08-21T11:38:00.000-04:00This is an interesting idea, Russ. I think you ar...This is an interesting idea, Russ. I think you are right to say that a reform of this magnitude would have to originate and be implemented/enforced by the federal government. And as I mentioned a few weeks ago in reference to the <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">forthcoming Dan Lowenstein chapter</A>, Congress would have a firm position in court should any reform idea initiated there be challenged by the states, state parties or national parties. <BR/><BR/>In theory it could be done, but the price tag would, I'd imagine, be quite high. It would be one thing if the federal government supplied the funding to the states for these elections in exchange for compliance. That's a total of 50 (or 100, depending upon how you want to look at it) elections. When we break it down to the congressional district level, what we are essentially talking about are 435 (or 870) elections, that while they are not special elections in the truest sense would be most closely related to those types of elections from a funding perspective. I don't have a sense of how high that price tag would be, but I'd wager that it would be pretty high.<BR/><BR/>While pooh-poohing the idea somewhat, it would be ideal for collecting "cost of election" data; data which is notoriously difficult to gather based on which government (state, local, etc.) is charged with housing such figures. That would be similar to the advent of the federal funding regime that began in the 1970s and began to unravel, both from data collection and viability standpoint when the opt-out wave began in the late '90s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-47430083987241164812008-08-21T11:27:00.000-04:002008-08-21T11:27:00.000-04:00If we strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their early ...If we strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their early primaries, the people in those states would be so mad that it just might cost the Democrats these important swing states. I know most people don't worry too much about the mechanics of the primary system, but Iowans and New Hampshirites consider their early primaries a sacred right. Taking them away could really backfire.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, Nevada and South Carolina were chosen because of the varied demographics of the states, to give different groups an early say. I think the system, therefore, is fairly representative.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-14126153417255041452008-08-21T09:24:00.000-04:002008-08-21T09:24:00.000-04:00It’s sad that we still consider it a given that th...It’s sad that we still consider it a given that the Favored Four should be “protected”. This is profoundly undemocratic, and contributes to the lack of engagement of voters across the country. Any collection of small states, let alone the same four every cycle, is going to be unrepresentative, since by definition they will not contain large urban areas. However, the benefits of beginning the process with smaller electorates has value, enabling retail politics to level the playing field for candidates with less money or name recognition. But there is a better way.<BR/><BR/>Why do we feel compelled to conduct our primaries across an entire state? We already have the country divided into 435 manageable units, called Congressional Districts. How about holding the first primary in one Congressional District, chosen by lottery? It might be a part of Brooklyn, or the entire state of North Dakota, or even half of New Hampshire, if they get lucky. Seems a lot more fair.<BR/><BR/>Two weeks later, the next primary could be held in two adjoining districts, also chosen by lottery. Gradually, over the course of the primary season, we would increase the size of the electorate, allowing the advantages of momentum and organization to take over. Each cycle, the order of primaries would be reselected randomly, allowing people all over the country a chance to have their say early.<BR/><BR/>But the states have been allowed to decide when they hold their primaries, and as we have seen, are nearly impossible to control. It is a lot to ask the states to adhere to a centrally mandated system, especially since they pay the cost of running the election. Money is probably the key to enforcing compliance. Federal money (or party money) would be disbursed to cover the cost of the primaries, but only to states following the schedule. I think you would see near-universal compliance.<BR/><BR/>Now, that’s some real reform: more fairness and less frontloading. Sorry, Iowa and New Hampshire, but you’ve gotten spoiled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com