Super-Duper Tuesday

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

COMMENTARY

Super-Duper Tuesday
By BRIAN M. CARNEY
March 12, 2007; Page A14

The presidential primary system as we have known it for 35 years is dead. History books will record that the era that began with the Democratic National Committee's post-1968 reforms ended Aug. 19, 2006 at the hands of the very same DNC.

On that date, the Democrats moved one party caucus -- Nevada's -- to the week between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. At the same time, it moved one primary -- South Carolina's -- to the week following New Hampshire's poll while decreeing that no other state that held a primary before Feb. 5 would have its delegates seated. Big deal, right? As it turns out, it was. In 2004, seven states with a combined population of some 23 million people picked delegates on the first Tuesday in February. In 2008, perhaps 20 states, representing over 126 million Americans, will pick candidates on that day. More states are jumping on the Feb. 5 bandwagon, so that number could still grow.

(snip)

But the slow jostling to the front of the line became a stampede last year. The prevailing attitude among those moving their primaries to the first allowable date on the calendar seemed to be, "If national prominence and early voting are good for Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, why should we get left behind?" It is impossible for anyone to campaign effectively before 126 million people in the one week available between the South Carolina primary and Super-Duper Tuesday. So candidates will rely heavily on media buys and campaigning by local proxies. All but the most well-funded campaigns will have to decide whether to play to their strengths by campaigning where their chances are best, or to try to pull off an upset by leaving their base unguarded and campaigning in the states they need the biggest boost.

Either way, the result will be something like the opposite of the small-town-style politics that characterize Iowa and New Hampshire hustings. In their rush to emulate New Hampshire and steal a piece of its supposedly outsize influence, the states lining up to be "early" are simply stealing each other's oxygen. It's possible that Feb. 5 will become a winner-take-all affair. But given the huge number of voters and delegates in play on that one day, it's equally likely that no decisive result emerges. If that proves true, two possibilities arise. On the one hand, the states that resisted the rush could find themselves as kingmakers, and being late might seem fashionable again. Alternatively, a fragmented result on Feb. 5 could well ensure a brokered convention in the summer. This would have the uncomfortable consequence for the candidates of forcing them to continue to court their base long after they would have hoped to start reaching out to the broader electorate.

(snip)

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117366057878933737.html (subscription)

[iamjoy]

1. Here's My Idea

I don't know how to implement it, but here goes:

Let the smaller states go first. The larger states go last. I'm in Florida, so I know this means I'd go near the end. Oh, well. I don't mind getting in line behind Georgia, running with Illinois and Pennsylvania. But it just isn't fair for say, North Carolina to get stuck behind California.

[question everything]

2. Rotating primaries were proposed some years back

but the idea seemed to have died down.

You group several states according to certain criteria: size, geographic location, areas of interest - like agriculture or coast preservation - and then you rotate the order at which they hold the primaries. Thus, one year your state will be last, but the next round it will be the first.