Copyright © 2005 by Thomas Gangale
Most recognize the desirability of a presidential nominating process that:
- Remains competitive for a longer period of time in order to give the public a greater opportunity to engage the campaign and to become informed about the candidates.
- Results in a briefer interval between the decisive contests and the conventions in order to help people sustain the levels of public engagement and information they had attained when the nominating campaign peaked.
- Increases the likelihood that voters in all states will have an effective voice in the selection of the nominees.
- Preserves "retail politicking" in small states early in the season. Gives an under-funded grass-roots campaign a chance to catch fire and take off. Gives candidates a chance to bounce back from early defeats.
- Allows small states that are diverse, both with respect to race/ethnicity and urban/small town/rural, to participate early in the process.
Sticking states in this or that slot is just so many band-aids. We need a comprehensive, systemic plan that accomplishes all of the above goals.
During his tenure as California Secretary of State, Bill Jones (R) worked to reform the presidential nomination process nationwide, through the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and also through his membership on the Republican National Committee's (RNC) 1999-2000 Advisory Commission on the Presidential Nominating Process (chaired by William Brock). In February 1999, the NASS endorsed the Rotating Regional Primary Plan, which was largely the work of Bill Jones and Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin (D). The Brock Commission recommended the Delaware Plan in its May 2000 report to the RNC Rules Committee, although Bill Jones wrote a dissenting statement in favor of the Rotating Regional Primary Plan. The Delaware Plan was rejected at the Republican National Convention in July 2000, in part due to opposition from the large-population states. It is easy to see why. Under the Delaware Plan, the 12 other most populous states--all the way down to Virginia--would have always voted last, by which time the nomination would often already have been decided.
To return to a more democratic presidential nomination process, the calendar of primary contests must be spread out again, as it was 30 years ago. Specifically, care must be taken to craft a system that allows a wide field of candidates to be serious contenders throughout a significant portion of the campaign season, giving the American people more and better choices. This can only be done by ensuring that the early primaries are few in number and are held in relatively small-population states, where it is not necessary to expend huge sums of money to wage effective campaigns. This was the philosophy behind the Delaware Plan. Its fatal flaw was that it permanently penalized the most populous states. We need a plan that preserves retail politicking in small venues in the early going to undercut the power of big money by giving underfunded grassroots campaigns an opportunity to catch fire and take off. But, we also need a plan that protects the interests of populous states.
Take a look at the American Plan (a.k.a. the Graduated Random Presisential Primary Plan). at AmericanPlan.org. It is endorsed by the Center for Voting and Democracy (FairVote.org).
The plan I propose is in line with the philosophy of the Delaware Plan, yet treats large and small states with a very high degree of equality. My plan ensures a few small primary contests at the beginning of the season, lowering the barrier to entering the political market of ideas. Even so, large-population states are eligible to vote as early as the fourth of ten election intervals, prior to which only 11 percent of the American electorate will have voted. Given that California is 12 percent of American electorate, it cannot help but have a huge impact on the outcome of the campaign in most years. The American Plan is vastly superior to the Rotating Regional Primary Plan, which, although it treats all states equally, erects an enormous barrier by requiring candidates to campaign simultaneously in one-fourth of the nation. Only a tiny field of candidates in either major political party will have the funds to do that.
A principal problem with the presidential primary reform issue has been that, although a number of politicians have recognized the desirability of reform, there has been little political will to follow through because it has been virtually a non-issue for the media and the public. However, the climate is changing. The grassroots involvement that has always been lacking on this issue is gathering momentum. Four California county Democratic central committees, one assembly district Democratic committee, the California Young Democrats, and the Young Democrats of America have endorsed the American Plan. Additionally, California Democratic Party chairman Art Torres introduced the American Plan at the 1 October meeting of the DNC Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling (co-chaired by David Price and Alexis Herman), and also spoke about the plan at the CDP Executive Board meeting in Manhattan Beach, California the following day. The CDP is set to consider a resolution on the American Plan at its next Executive Board meeting in January 2006.
Naturally, because of this year's Price-Herman Commission, we have been concentrating our efforts on the Democratic Party; however, we also recognize the RNC's long history on this issue, and hope to stimulate a revival of that effort. A bipartisan strategy is essential to the success of this mission.
In its 1 October meeting, several Price-Herman Commission members expressed the sense that reforming the nomination process must go well beyond the minor changes the commission is considering for 2008. They want to "do the whole ville," but they're worried about the party taking point on this issue and getting shot up by the other party. The concern is a valid one. It also exists on the Republican side, and it was a contributing factor to the demise of the Brock Commission report at the 2000 Republican National Convention.
Another sentiment expressed in the Price-Herman Commission was the lack of Republican cooperation on the issue of presidential primary reform. This is tragicomic, given that Bill Brock expressed his frustration to me a couple of weeks ago that the Price-Herman Commission hadn't contacted him. He remains very passionate on this issue, and he is ready to join forces with like-minded Democrats. In a phone conversation in August, Bill Jones said that he is for any proposal that "shakes up the system." Other former members of the Brock Commission that FairVote.org has talked to are Tom Sansonetti and Jim Nicholson.
Bill Brock has expressed an interest in getting grassroots movements going in Republican state parties similar to the one in the California Democratic Party. Fixing the system is not a leap of faith that either party need take alone, and we can create an opportunity for them to take the leap together for 2012. The DNC is unwilling to effect a major change for 2008, and the RNC's rules prevent it from doing so. But what can be accomplished in the next couple of years is the creation of a climate of reform within the Republican Party to mirror the work we have begun in the Democratic Party. If successful, the RNC could empanel its own commission in 2007 to recommend systemic changes to the 2008 Republican National Convention for implementation in 2012. Parallel to this and for the same purpose, the DNC could empanel a successor commission to the present Price-Herman Commission.
We need a triple blue moon--RNC, DNC, and NASS--to pull this off, but we can make it happen. We need for grassroots efforts to get rolling all over the United States. Get active in your county central committees and get them to pass resolutions that call on the RNC or DNC (as appropriate) to establish a commission to report its recommendation for systemic reform of the presidential nomination process for implementation beginning in the 2012 presidential election cycle. These resolutions should also, and that call on such a commission to seriously consider the American Plan.