Promo from her blog: “WANT YOUR PRIMARY VOTE TO MATTER? Jon Bingham does. He’s got a crazy notion on rotating primaries. I shall chat with him at 9:30.”  That was a good clue that it would be an interesting conversation.

Although she may not quite be fully convinced just yet ;o), it was a lively and useful exchange. Go to the 12:50 mark for her final promo statement and the start of the interview – listen here.

To more completely address some of Mandy’s legitimate questions/concerns (since we always think of things afterward that we wished we had said…):

At 1:15:  “…an idea of how to make the primaries more equitable and how to make them matter for every state in the union…”

Excellent description of the purpose. Thanks!

—

Mandy’s subsequent thought (at 1:55) about us in Kentucky being blessed by not being bombarded by all of the presidential primary ads:

Under this proposal, across 12 years each state would be subjected to the political messaging occasionally rather than every time due to being early in one cycle, in the middle of the pack in another cycle and late in the process the other time.

—

Timeframe concern (starting at 15:45 but the key followups are at 17:03 regarding length of time for rollout of states [her desire for it to all be within 2-4 or even 6 weeks] and 18:30 – “why spread them out that much?):

The goal should be to have a quality candidate-vetting experience that does not drag on forever but that gives a legitimate opportunity for lesser-known candidates to be heard and considered.  This proposal strikes a balance between too long (the Iowa straw poll knocks out a candidate (Pawlenty) in August 2011) and too short (only the household names get remotely considered).    The first phase of states progresses at timely, functional intervals (2 weeks, 2 weeks and 3 weeks – then a longer break around Easter which gives the country a breather and the candidates time to raise funds and implement plans to target states for the 2nd phase), but phase 2 moves much faster (1 week, 1 week, 2 weeks).  A bit of a breather is in place before Phase III.  Patience with purpose will give us a better quality result.

—

At 20:10, moving the dates for the states every 4 years and subsequent issues raised:

Rephrasing one of my early points:  How important is the office of the Presidency of the United States?  Doesn’t the importance of this position make it worthy of funding a process that has integrity and treats states equitably?  Why skimp here?  I am not a big fan of federal spending in a number of directions, but the presidential nomination process can be a legitimate expenditure for federal consideration.

The states can have their non-presidential races determined in the same manner and timing they always have.

One feature that I did not raise explicitly (“other aspects of the proposal” at 22:20) but should have is that the structure of delegate apportionment will likely keep the early states from ending the nomination process prematurely.  Phase 1 small states will allocate delegates across the top 3 finishers (1/2, 1/3 and 1/6, respectively).  This will encourage 3-4 candidates to hang in a while but discourage more than that from persisting past Mega-State 1 and into Phase 2 states (which only awards the top 2 finishers at 2/3 and 1/3, respectively).  The states after that may still attract attention of the final two candidates since Mega-State 2 and Phase 3 states are winner-take-all.  There is a purpose for every feature in this comprehensive plan.  When these features work together, they create an efficient and effective method for engaging a wide range of candidates and the most states possible in each election cycle.  (Side note:  the reference to 2008′s Dem primary process at 22:30 – The reason it kept dragging on was lots of the remaining states were proportional rather than winner-take-all which caused it to be a slow bleed instead of decisive.)

—

At 22:38:

This section got a bit jumbled, but the problem to resolve is…  Some states have got to be before other states each time.  Either we have the same states always lead and the other states always not matter or we rotate across multiple years to allow all states to matter at some times.  I find the latter far preferable to Iowa.

—

Bob at 30:50 leads to Mandy response at 31:30  “Voting days need to be consistent…  And when you’re moving things around every four years that… creates problems.” :

Without any ability to move dates from cycle to cycle, no solution can be created.  So it must be Iowa forever.

—

The purposes of this proposal are not merely to place Kentucky or Indiana early (self-interested maneuvering) and get the nomination process over quickly.  The purposes are to promote fairness to all states, to enable high-quality opportunities for consideration of all of the candidates, and to ensure that nomination results are based on actual voter participation that parallels the election process in the fall (Tuesday primaries – not caucuses or conventions). 

—

No quibbles with the conversation with Mandy.  Much thanks for the airtime!

I simply wanted to do a better job addressing the concerns raised.  I hope this helps!

Should New Hampshire always host the first primary?

Should South Carolina always be the first Southern state?

Should Florida always be the first mega-state?

Should individual states maneuver in self-interest to push the primary calendar into early January (and potentially even before then)?

Should a straw poll at least 5 months prior to any delegates being selected be so important as to cause a candidate to drop out of the race?

Should the selection of delegates have no rhyme or reason from state to state (some winner-take-all, others proportional, others merely a beauty contest with no impact on delegate selection)?

Should members of one party be able to vote in the other party’s nomination process?

Should some candidates be excluded from the ballot in some states?

Is the current presidential nomination process worthy of the Office it seeks to fill?

Presidential Nomination Solution:

Given the 2008 nomination results on both sides (the collapse to a quick decision for McCain and the prolonged grudge match of Clinton-Obama) and the spectacle that was 2012 for the Republicans, it is abundantly clear that we need a significant overhaul of the process – one upon which both Democrats and Republicans (as well as the general population) should be able to agree.  The current process is so fundamentally flawed that settling for just a few tweaks will not do.

This site proposes a straightforward, comprehensive solution that delivers these features:

• A rotation plan is implemented such that no state (or set of states) always goes first.
• The rotation plan considers both North and South as well as Eastern, Central and Western regions.
• No one state is the sole focus on any primary date.
• Smaller states still have the opportunity for retail politics to enable a less-funded candidate to emerge.
• Mega-states have an appropriately prominent – but not overwhelming – role.
• The nomination calendar starts in February and ends in June.  This protects us from calendar-creep into the holidays and still gives ample time for party conventions and the general election campaign.
• The delegate awards to each candidate are well reasoned for each stage of the nomination process.
• Republicans nominate the Republican.  Democrats nominate the Democrat.
• The candidates’ names consistently appear on all states’ ballots.
• Tuesday primaries are implemented.  Why?  The general election is also on a Tuesday.  The general election is not a caucus.