I don't think I've mentioned it here before (oh yeah, here), but there's been some interesting discussion over the last year or so about rearranging the calendar of Presidential primaries and caucuses to promote a better process, e.g., to keep a pair of white Northeastern states from carrying disproportionate sway in determining who wins the major party nominations. How to rearrange it is difficult -- a smattering of different regions? of different ethnic compositions? change it once or reevaluate on some regular basis? -- and many states would fight for the honor of falling earlier (and thus giving their residents the honor of mattering more). I don't know the right answer, but the notion of letting last time's swing states go first is very intriguing. This is either the epitome of focusing on "electability," or it's a sensible way to put the energies of candidates to use in those early days where they'll be most important to the eventual race. Anyway, more fodder for the mill...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I like the idea of inserting some dynamic element into the process, rather than just having it be a fixed set and order.
Just makes the whole system seem more responsive to change over time.
It might also be interesting to put 2-3 swing states in the first batch plus a state that was deep blue plus a state that was deep red --- just to ensure the candidate is able to address a broad spectrum of the voting public rather than targetting only the mushy middle.
I wonder what kind of side effects would develop from something like this. Would there be incentives for state parties to want their state to be a swing state, for example? How would that play out?
(Caveat - didn't read the link, maybe this is all discussed there. :) )
Post a Comment