Proportional Representation

Charlie Cook says Democrats ought to revisit the proportional delegate allocation rule: "Democrats might want to consider establishing some type of 'bonus' delegates for winning a state, or at least modifying the party’s perverse proportional representation system, which, in a two-way race, makes it extremely difficult to build a lead and almost impossible to overtake an opponent who has one. But for this election, the rules are the rules."

As I understand it, the Democrats already do the bonus delegates thing. As for the proportional system, it's true that 2008 is making it look pretty bad. On the other hand, give us three or more similarly-matched candidates, or one front-runner plus two or three plausible alternatives, and suddenly winner-take-all starts looking bad. My suggested modification would be to adopt a more genuinely proportional system -- if you get 55 percent of the votes in a state, you get 55 percent of the delegates -- instead of the current system which relies on congressional districts. But if we want a shorter nominating contest next time around, the important thing is just to . . . shorten the primary season. Make April 1 the last day on which a state can hold a primary or caucus, and we'll wrap up by April 1. Or push that back to May 1 or June 1 or whatever you like. It's a pretty simple scheduling issue that doesn't seem to require changing the underlying nature of the voting process.

Comments

in a two-way race, makes it extremely difficult to build a lead and almost impossible to overtake an opponent who has one

Though difficult, it's already been accomplished by Obama. He gained the lead and Hillary can't overtake him. So, you know, not really "extremely difficult."

Posted by Craig | April 25, 2008 1:32 PM

The system should be revised to allow more advantages to Hillary Clinton when she runs next time. It turned out that high levels of funding, name recognition, and years to lay the groundwork for her campaign just weren't enough. We need a system that even Hillary can't manage to screw up. Otherwise, we're just wasting our time.

Posted by Helter | April 25, 2008 1:32 PM

The whole system does seem rather arbitrary and haphazard. If they are going to make reforms, they should probably do a wholesale revision of the primary process to make it more rational.

Posted by blah | April 25, 2008 1:35 PM

You can argue that this is a bad year for winner-take-all for the Republicans, too, in that it delivered a candidate who wouldn't have won under a proportional-representation system and who is arguably a weaker general-election candidate.

Posted by Karl | April 25, 2008 1:36 PM

Actually I think a shorter primary season might not be good because momentum will be even more important. It would have to be designed in a way such that there is a least a 2 (preferably more) between separate contests to allow things to settle down a bit and so that they don't influence each other too much.

Posted by MS | April 25, 2008 1:36 PM

in a two-way race, makes it extremely difficult to build a lead and almost impossible to overtake an opponent who has one

Why should it be easy to do either of those things? They should both be difficult.

Posted by lfv | April 25, 2008 1:36 PM

Exactly: proportional delegate allocation is what you do if you want something with the general characteristics of a one-person/one-vote national election, but spread out over time. And if you don't like how long it is taking for that process to be carried out, you should shorten the process, not monkey around with the allocation rules.

By the way, probably the most ridiculous argument Cook makes is this:

"In some ways, Clinton has spent the past six weeks in a horrible situation. How do you quit a race when you’re still winning primaries? . . . As long as Clinton is winning, she can’t quit."

That is exactly backwards. What better way to lose than to graciously concede the overall contest after winning a primary? I think most people who have lost elections, or been forced out of a series of elections by one or more losses, would happily have taken the chance to go out a winner instead. No, whatever reason Clinton isn't quitting, it has nothing to do with this being a bad time, because in fact it is an ideal time.

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 1:37 PM

You can argue that this is a bad year for winner-take-all for the Republicans, too, in that it delivered a candidate who wouldn't have won under a proportional-representation system and who is arguably a weaker general-election candidate.

Posted by Karl | April 25, 2008 1:37 PM

You miss three complicating factors, Matt...

1- the direct suffrage versus caucus systems exist for historical as well as political reasons, each having its pros and cons...

2- the fact that apportionment by district is not the same as apportionment over the aggregate vote in each state...

3- the underlying fact that there really are no national parties in this country but rather fifty-plus state and territorial entities that each reflects a local political culture...

The underlying question is whether a primary is an 'open' activity for people affiliated with a given party in a loose or tight sense...

... and that does not even begin to consider the impact of trolls and other activities that frankly mystify me except to suggest that some people see their vote as a personal instrument rather than in civic terms.

In my opinion, proportional systems are no better worse than majoritarian systems (and I lived in France in the 80's and 90's when a strictly proportional system was tried (with a 5% threshold to win a seat)... and the growth of the National Front was one result...). I'd like to see some state parties experiment with the "instant runoff" model, but I doubt any are open minded enough to try it.

Posted by batondor | April 25, 2008 1:39 PM

Meant to say at least 2 weeks

Posted by MS | April 25, 2008 1:39 PM

Ironically enough, weren't we all bellyaching about 15 months ago that because of the rush to earlier primaries we'd know the nominees by Feb '08 and then have to endure over 9 months of dramaless general electioneering?

Is it also possible that at the end of the day none of us really have a damned clue how any given situation will work itself out in any given year, and perhaps rules that have worked fine for a number of cycles will continue to work fine for a number more, despite our tendency to overanalyze a single one-off cycle -- especially one we have already so horribly misjudged a priori?

Posted by joel | April 25, 2008 1:40 PM

I think the problem is that the superdelegates are too large a proportion of the whole, making it difficult (in a close race) for either candidate to lock up the nomination via primaries and caucuses. I'd restrict the supers to elected officials, and eliminate supers who are simply party functionaries.

Posted by Anne E | April 25, 2008 1:41 PM

We don't hand out bonus delegates to the winner of a state any more, at least not formally. The unpledged add-on delegates (UADs) were initially added in response to precisely this sort of complaint - Jesse Jackson (and his aide, Harold Ickes) were aggrieved that he was winning states but not accruing a sufficient advantage from that. These days, most of the UADs back the state winners, but others don't, and overall, they're too few in number to have much of an impact.

I don't think the solution is handing out all the delegates on a statewide basis. One of the really nice features of this primary has been the way tht Clinton and Obama have both fought their way across entire states. With a statewide system, Obama would have spent more time padding his inner-city and wealthy-suburb margins, and Hillary more time in mill towns and rural areas. We'd have more polarization, not less.

Frankly, I don't think we're ever likely to see a race like this again in our lifetimes. The candidates have come to stand for two, fairly well-blanaced factions of the Democratic Party. We're at a unique moment of transition. Even four years from now, the demographic trends on a nationwide basis would deliver more substantial margins for Obama, and would lead to a shortened race (four more years of younger voters eligible to vote, four years of Hillary's core constituency - not to put too fine a point on it - dying off.) This sort of thing could recur, of course, if the party finds itself evenly divided again. But since every system has its costs and benefits, I wouldn't be too eager to abandon one that's worked pretty well, at least through the end of March. Foreshortening the calendar probably isn't a bad idea - it'd be nice to squeeze the contests in by the end of April, and they're too spread out at the end as things stand. But part of the problem here is that our primary system resembles the taxcode - a million separate provisions mean that no one really understands it all, and while each provision addresses a particular problem or concern, taken together, they often make matters worse.

Posted by Cynic | April 25, 2008 1:44 PM

Charlie Cook is betraying some basic inumeracy here. Winner-take-all and proportional allocation are indeed different ways to allocate delegates, but there is nothing about the two methods that intrinsically makes it more difficult to come from behind. With winner-take-all, its easier to come back, but the candidate is more likelier to need to make up a bigger deficit (just ask Mitt Romney).

How the two methods allocate delegates depends on the specifics of the situation. If we had winner-take-all, then we could easily have a closer race than we do now, albeit with Hillary in the lead, based on where the candidates' strengths happen to be. Its hard to say because their strategies would have been different (at least in the Obama campaign, which stressed the importance of using an intelligent strategy).

The reason for "purgatory" is because of the large number of superdelegates. Either candidate needs something like 60% or so of all the pledged delegates to win. So, yes, winner-take-all would be more likely in general to produce a larger margin for one or the other (due to higher variance in delegate allocation), but other than that, Cook doesn't have a case.

Posted by Jim W | April 25, 2008 1:46 PM

The whole system does seem rather arbitrary and haphazard.

The system was designed to reward activists and elected officials with a convention slot, not select a candidate. Selecting a candidate is for Iowa and New Hampshire.

Posted by Mike | April 25, 2008 1:52 PM

One disadvantage of the current system is an overwhelming lead in pledged delegates (which Obama has) doesn't look like one. The real reason this is still a race is not the way delegates are awarded it is having about 20% of the delegates being free agents. By this definition anything less then a 20% lead over you oppenent can always be overturned by the superdelegates and anything less then 20% apart in the way you've chosen to assign delegates is a close race.

Posted by Stephen | April 25, 2008 1:56 PM

Notice how in primaries or general elections cable and TV networks will call a state with only a small percent of precincts reporting? I always wonder how they do that. The Democratic primary is the exact opposite of that.

This primary was over two months ago. Bill Clinton even said his wife needed to win Ohio and Texas big. Well, when you combine the Texas primary and caucus votes of its two part system, Clinton lost and Obama received more delegates. Hillary should have conceced like Edwards did or Kucinich did but for whatever reason she didn't and people still keep giving her money to waste.

Posted by Peter K. | April 25, 2008 2:04 PM

On the fairness side the biggest problem with current system is that by going by district, there are too few delegates on the line in each district, so we get these absurd results were a 58% to 42% split results in an even split of delegates. In other districts 50.1% to 49.9 percent results in a tie. (It would also be fairer, if logistically nightmarish, to apportion the delegates by district based on the actual votes cast in the election rather than votes cast in past elections).

From the sake of determining the winner, the big issue is the one that Stephen is pointing to. The current system hides the actual state of the race since it hides how much of a lead a candidate has. In a recent WashingtonPost chat, Lois Romano claimed both that she could not see how Clinton could win the race, and that it is a very close race. She did not seem to see that what makes something count as a very close race is precisely that one can see how different candidates could come out on top.

Posted by Lon | April 25, 2008 2:09 PM

Democrats ought to revisit the proportional delegate allocation rule

Isn't that what the Clinton campaign doing right now, in the middle of the race?

Posted by ben | April 25, 2008 2:10 PM

As others have commented, Cook's last paragraph suggest Clinton can't quit while she is winning (of course she could).

But also -- she isn't winning. She could have quit after the TX caucus results came in. She could have quite after Wyoming or Mississippi.

But of course she has a 'big state' strategy. She should now declare North Carolina the biggest state left on the table, is going to be her next victory -- if she wins there, I imagine the super-delegates will be impressed. If she loses she has the excuse Cook is looking for.

North Carolina is much bigger then Indiana and has been much closer to being in play for the Democrat in recent presidential elections. (Repulicans won NC by margins of between 1% and 13% in the last four and won IN by margins between 6% and 21%). North Carolina really should be the next showdown between these two -- not Indiana.

Posted by Stephen | April 25, 2008 2:14 PM

The current system hides the actual state of the race since it hides how much of a lead a candidate has.

Well, yes and no. Yes, if you do not understand the rules and basic arithmetic. No, if you do. So, for many (most?) pundits, it hides it. Just listen to the recent blogginheads between Kleiman and some Hillary supporter. Its analogous to hearing a debate between Socrates and Fred Flintstone.

Posted by Jim W | April 25, 2008 2:15 PM

Actually I think a shorter primary season might not be good because momentum will be even more important.

I think "momentum" is an overhyped concept of the punditry. If somebody goes from one win to another, it's "momentum" that carries them but if they lose after that, well I guess the momentum wasn't really there? I think the vast majority of people vote for their own reasons and don't get caught up in the concept of "momentum" like the talking heads do.

Posted by LFC | April 25, 2008 2:18 PM

People have such short memories. Until this year, the common complaint was the the primaries were too front loaded and the nominee was decided too soon. That left months in which the candidates had to spend lots of money, but couldn't really get any traction until Labor Day when the electorate actually started to pay attention to the election. And it kept most state primaries from making any difference, which is why Michigan and Florida pushed to the front.

Now we have just what everyone said they wanted, and they all hate it. It destroys party unity, keeps us from turning focus on the general election, etc., etc.

My solution is a hybrid of current rules: Proportional representation, as now (but simpler, perhaps), UNLESS someone wins 50% or more. If you win 50% or more, you get all the delegates, or at least 75%.

I support this approach even though, had it been adopted in this race, it would probably advantage Clinton, which is not the outcome I favor.

Posted by David A | April 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Here's a great video on Hillary's metrics. (Sounds like Keith Olbermann doing the voice over.)

Posted by LFC | April 25, 2008 2:27 PM

Again, the problem has nothing whatever to due with the proportional allocation of delegates and everything to do with the distorting effects of the Super Delegates. Unelected by primary votes, they are the ONLY reason this contest is still going on.

Posted by Mark | April 25, 2008 2:29 PM

David A,

Winner-take-all, or some hybrid as you suggest, would only shorten the process in the sense that it would put the leading candidate over a threshold from which it is impossible for them to lose. However, with proportional, an analogous threshold from which it is virtually impossible to lose could be reached in the exact same amount of time. The only caveat is that, due to the huge nonlinearity built into it, the WTA approach produces higher variance and thus much more unpredictability (witness the unlikely triumph of McCain).

Posted by Jim W | April 25, 2008 2:31 PM

I don't really blame the superdelegate system. The notion that the remaining superdelegates will somehow vote en masse is absurd, and indeed no more likely than the remaining states all going 100% for one candidate. And if purely theoretical possibilities like that were all it took for the media to "call" a race, they would never call a race before a candidate had enough votes/delegates officially in hand.

No, the media has all the information it needs to "call" this race, and has for a while now. So, the reason they won't do so must be a choice, and it is not hard to explain their choice: the continuation of this contest is making them cold hard cash, and so they are not about to "call" it. And the notion of the superdelegates voting en masse (and every other similar absurdity) is just an excuse for the media to keep the money flowing.

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 2:39 PM

The main issue in this primary season is that MI and FL were stripped of their delegates. Thus, when Obama hits the magic number (2024? 2025?) of pledged and committed super delegates, Hillary will in all likelihood argue that the race is not in fact over and cannot be declared over until the delegates have been restored and apportioned according to the popular vote.

Posted by Sean Wright | April 25, 2008 2:43 PM

This is exactly right--"My suggested modification would be to adopt a more genuinely proportional system -- if you get 55 percent of the votes in a state, you get 55 percent of the delegates -- instead of the current system which relies on congressional districts." That would be a very good system. I'd also get rid of the superdelegates. But even with supers, a more perfect proportional system would be a huge improvement. Also, we really need to insure that Democratic voters in all states have a say in the election. That's why I've always favored a national primary--it insures that every single Democrat in every single state has a chance to make their vote count. I understand the arguments against it, but there has to be some alternative to the normal decision by NH/IA or the current scenario where no one can win but the remaining states votes don't really count since the ultimate outcome of the race is really no longer in the hands of those voters. Either of these two scenarios is a mockery of a democratic system.

Posted by daniel | April 25, 2008 2:48 PM

The purpose of the superdelegates (apart from giving DNC types and elected Dems a ticket to the show) was to prevent a candidate who had weak support but garnered a whole lot of delegates by odd chance (in I think '72, somebody got a whole slew of extra delegates because CA was winner take all) from running away with it.

This problem would be solved by a simple rule change -- bring all the supers to the convention, but they don't get to vote on the first ballot. That way, if you have a race that's close but with a clear winner like this year, the game is over when the primaries end.

But if you have a 3-way race, perhaps where the #3 candidate is siphoning off an important fraction of the overall strongest candidates' support, you could end up with a deadlock at the convention. And then the supers could step in.

Posted by ResumeMan | April 25, 2008 2:51 PM

The best thing would be to get rid of superdelegates altogether. The likelihood of a scenario in which they can both decide the thing AND in which their decision would go against the pledged delegate leader is low enough that they're not worth the bother.

I also support a true proportional system along the lines of what Matt suggested.

Finally, when a candidate agrees that a primary doesn't count, she shouldn't be able to get away with changing her mind halfway through the process without monumental amounts of scorn being heaped on her.

Posted by Jim W | April 25, 2008 2:58 PM

I don't believe in overreacting to one election. The exact situation we see this year--a case where the person thought to be the sure thing nominee, someone who came into the race with unusual advantages in name recognition and connections was able to hang on despite trailing in the overall delegate count for 2 1/2 months and in elected delegates since Iowa--is unlikely to repeat anytime soon. Anyone other than Clinton would have died off long ago.

Posted by ChuckE | April 25, 2008 3:25 PM

Jim W.

Finally, when a candidate agrees that a primary doesn't count, she shouldn't be able to get away with changing her mind halfway through the process without monumental amounts of scorn being heaped on her.

Clinton has gotten away with a lot. She's making noises again about Florida and Michigan which is unbelievable. And pace the whiners on her side, Obama supporters have pretty much gone along with it, following Obama's lead. What can they do anyway? Plus they're going to win so it's no use getting bent out of shape. I think Obama has been admirable and shown himself to be a leader in this instance.

April 25, 2008, 1:43 pm
Obama Takes a Pass on Race Remarks
By JEFF ZELENY

INDIANAPOLIS – Senator Barack Obama passed on an opportunity today to add his voice to other Democrats who have criticized former President Bill Clinton over a series of racially tinged comments about the presidential campaign.

At a news conference here, Mr. Obama was asked if he agreed with Representative James Clyburn’s assertion that an irreparable breach had developed between Mr. Clinton and black voters after a heated Democratic nominating contest.

“I never believe in irreparable breaches,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m a big believer in reconciliation and redemption.”

Mr. Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, told The Times on Thursday that “black people are incensed over all of this.” He added that there seemed to a nearly “unanimous” view among African Americans that the Clintons were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

As he campaigned in Indiana today, Mr. Obama sought to change the subject about a divided Democratic Party, particularly along racial lines.

“Look, this has been a fierce contest,” Mr. Obama said. “I am confident – I’ve said repeatedly – that come August, there are going to be a whole bunch of people standing on the stage with a lot of balloons and stuff, confetti raining down on the head of the Democratic nominee and people are going to be excited about taking on John McCain in November.”

The topic came up during a press conference before a row of gas pumps at Joe’s Junction on the outskirts of Indianapolis. Mr. Obama staged the event to highlight a concern about the price of gasoline. (A gallon of regular unleaded here at Joe’s was $3.55 today.)

“Few costs, obviously, are rising faster than the ones people pay at the pump,” Mr. Obama said. “For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans, they’re a huge problem, bordering on a crisis.”

Mr. Obama called for a windfall profit tax on oil companies, in addition to taking steps to reduce the price of oil and increase transparency on how prices are set. He also called for a middle class tax cut, with savings of up to $1,000 a year, as well as increasing fuel-efficiency standards and $150 billion over 10 years to establish a green energy sector.

“The candidates with the Washington experience – my opponents – are good people, they mean well, but they’ve been in Washington an awful long time and even with all the experience they talk about, nothing has happened,” Mr. Obama said. “The country didn’t raise fuel-efficiency standards for over 30 years. So, what have we got for all that experience? Gas that’s approaching $4 a gallon.”

The price of gas has emerged as a leading point of distinction between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Obama said he is opposed to a federal gas-tax holiday, which Mr. McCain supports. Asked about the tax relief here, Mr. Obama said he didn’t think it was “the best approach for us to take right now.”

Mr. Obama said such a step would deplete the highway trust fund needed for rebuilding roads and bridges.

“I don’t want somebody to save essentially 25 bucks – that’s what the savings would yield for the average driver – and now they’re potentially driving over an unsafe bridge,” Mr. Obama said.

The McCain campaign criticized its prospective Democratic rival for saying “nothing about his new opposition to immediate price relief for hardworking Americans who are seeing record prices at the pump.”

“Barack Obama can’t deliver for working people if he supports higher gas taxes when the price of fuel is at a record high and is likely to get higher by summertime,” said Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain.
----
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/obama-takes-a-pass-on-race-remarks/

Posted by Peter K. | April 25, 2008 3:26 PM

Assuming we keep the supers, I'd assign them as the bonus delegates. First round of voting, they vote for who won their state. Second round, they can vote for anyone they like. (So can pledged delegates, but the pledged delegates would presumably have some loyalty/ideological alignment with their candidate).

Posted by Greg Sanders | April 25, 2008 3:42 PM

I'm all for scheduling each state's primary or caucus based on the state's population, with the smallest states going first and the largest states going last. I would also eliminate the superdelegates.

I'm also open to the idea of having a series of regional SuperTuesdays (one for the Northeast, ne for the South, one for the Midwest, one for the Southwest, one for the Northwest)held on the last Tuesday of each month from January to May. The order that these regional Super Tuesdays should rotate every presidential primary season.

Posted by eltoro | April 25, 2008 4:24 PM

I appreciate the attempts to reform the system, but regional Super Tuesdays are a bad idea. Way too much influence for one region, and it's not enough that it would rotate around the country. All that would do is make it unbalanced in a different direction every four years. Better to intersperse states with diverse characteristics throughout the election calendar.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 25, 2008 6:39 PM

She should now declare North Carolina the biggest state left on the table, is going to be her next victory -- if she wins there, I imagine the super-delegates will be impressed. If she loses she has the excuse Cook is looking for.

With regard to NC, I think the Clinton campaign is stuck where it can't decide between rolling out the standard 'doesn't count' excuses -- too black, too upscale, too many college voters -- and actually competing for more than a single-digits loss.

They'd like to focus on Indiana, but NC matters, now and in November.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 25, 2008 8:45 PM

Five regional primaries , voting a month apart, beginning with the first week in January and ending in May. You rotate as to which goes first. Super-delegates must vote by the date of the last primary. There, fixed.
Is it perfect?Nope, there is no perfect system. Its a lot better than this crap in which the Democrats might have to wait until practically Labor Day until we are certain who the candidate is.
Iowa and NH first? Fcuk 'em, why the heck are the ice folk and the corn folk always given first preference in choosing a candidate? Let Oregon or Georgia be in the front seat sometime.
But what about retail campaigning? Nostalgic claptrap. Obama handing out donuts and Hilary drinking whiskey tells us zero about their presidential abilities. Lets face it, 90 percent of the public gets its info about the candidates from TV, newspapers, and the Internet.Lets stop pretending that this in 1948.

Posted by stonetools | April 25, 2008 10:27 PM

Aside from all the crap Clinton and her allies have pulled in order to try to destroy Obama--yeah, aside from THAT--there's nothing wrong with the way this primary process has played out. We're down to two candidates with fairly evenly matched support with delegate counts that are . . . fairly evenly matched. We should now change things so that when we have two candidates with evenly matched support their delegate totals should in no way reflect the level of support? Maybe the party should just invest in some of Bev Harris's black box voting machines and then they wouldn't have to worry about all this.

Seriously, the only reasons why anyone is unhappy with this primary process is a) the establishment's preferred candidate hasn't found a way to win the nomination, and b) the establishment doesn't accept losing.

Posted by jlw | April 25, 2008 11:43 PM

The system is actually quite good for a few reasons:

1) District delegates allow regional differences in voters to have an impact, and for that impact to be recorded. Poor districts will vote differently from rich ones and the rich district cannot overpower the poor one because the delegates are segregated.

The various add-on delegates proportionate to statewide vote achieve some amount of what you propose.

Combined, they make it difficult to win an overwhelming margin unless you're foolish and don't even bother to campaign in Idaho.

2) Superdelegates are also designed to prolong the process. Basically 20% of all available delegates can be sequestered - and since they can change freely up to the convention, they aren't ever really 'won' until the last moment.

3) The DNC awards bonus delegates to states that move their primaries later in the process. Move back to April/May/June and you get 10%/20%/30%. I understand part of the FL/MI revote negotiation centered on them trying to get their bonus for the revote. Talk about chutzpa. But the party is here looking for a long process and rewarding the states willing to go late to help that along. So not only did the FL Dem party miss out by not going on 2/5, they would have had 30% more say had they gone on 6/5.

The DNC *wants* a long process. They want every state to vote - every voter to have a meaningful vote. I think if Dean had his way, no supers would announce until after the last primary. A long process keeps the candidates in the news, keeps them in front of voters, and keeps the voters involved. Tell me PA turnout wasn't incredibly beneficial to the party. But the process also gives minority voters a say and voters that don't get a voice in the general.

The biggest flaw in the process is the number of delegates awarded per district. A 4 delegate district in a 2 candidate race won't move from 2-2 to 3-1 until the gap hits 62.5/37.5. That's a pretty big margin. A 5 delegate district will split 3-2 at 50/50 and 4-1 at 70/30. This means that some districts are *much* easier to win a delegate in than other, and that candidates are at an advantage to focus on those. Obama's campaign is masterful at this, btw.

But something really should happen with the early primaries. I like the idea of dividing the nation into 5 regions of ~10 states each. Pick 2 states per region to go in the first month, 2 each in the 2nd, etc. Rotate them around from year to year so everyone gets a shot up front now and then. Balance them out in some way by population to force candidates to campaign in many races at once across the country. The general is 50 states in one day - might as well see how they manage it.

Posted by Martin | April 26, 2008 3:33 AM

I like the hybrid approach. Phase One is the test phase: rotate through regional contests involving a small number of states (say one or two states from four or five regions) at roughly two week intervals, in each different campaign cycle changing the states you include and the order of the regional contests. This should take about six to eight weeks from the first to the last regional contest, assuming 4-5 regions and two weeks between contests.

Phase Two is the national primary phase. Wait a month or so after the last regional contest, maybe up to six weeks, and then have all the other states vote on one day. That is the end of the process, and from start to finish it could take anywhere between 2.5 to 3.5 months (where in that range is basically just a matter of choice for the Party). So, say, you could have the first regional contest in mid-January and have the national primary at the end of March or April.

Basically, I can see the point in having an initial phase in which candidates can be tested for campaigning ability and regional appeal, all without needing too much money at the start of the process. But once there has been a reasonable opportunity for such a test, and once the candidates have had a reasonable time to raise more funds and make their arguments to the rest of the nation on the basis of the results, I don't see the point in dragging out the process.

Posted by DTM | April 26, 2008 9:21 AM

Reasonable, but consider the counterfactual scenario in which Edwards is slightly more viable and pulls 20-25% of the pledged delegates. Now we're in a situation where not only will no candidate win on pledged delegates alone, but only overwhelming consensus from the superdelegates will lead to a first ballot win.

The idea that tweaking things here and there is going to fix the primary system is silly. We ought to consider what the goal of the process is and build a new version from scratch that's designed for that goal. Maybe that doesn't just mean changing delegate allocation, but also incorporating some form of instant run-off voting.

Of course there are two problems with this. One, the primary process is a 50-state-plus-territories monster, and major changes to it will have to go through state parties and legislatures. And two, those who gain power in the present iteration of the system have little incentive to change it. There was a pretty general consensus in late 2007 that caucuses were bad (before Obama starting winning lots of them, and suddenly his supporters realized what an important part of the process they are), but do you think Obama as party leader would push to get rid of them? I don't; frankly, I don't think Clinton would either. The party's going to be run in the service of the White House for the next four years, and no one's going to bother with any of these issues anymore once the convention's done.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | April 26, 2008 11:12 AM