Or make the order of the primaries random. Literally pull the states out of a hate to determine the order of primaries to be held on 5 or 6 dates spread from February through May or June. Do the hat 5 times for the next 5 presidential elections, so the order will be different each time, but set long in advance. Then after 5 elections, assess how the new system works. The system we have now is beyond stupid, and destructive. Make it random.
6
Or you hold an actual, countrywide election. In two tiers. First all the candidates, then the two best scoring. And then you focus on winning the actual Presidential election.
This long drawn out and increasingly acrimonious process is making only Trump and his cohorts happy. And that would be the case regardless of who the GOP opponent is.
Moreover, unbelievably and suicidally, it becomes ever harder to imagine that the eventual Democratic nominee from the current approach would get the wholehearted support of the other candidates, let alone their disappointed supporters.
11
"Imagine a world in which the Democrats’ first contests gave them a fuller, more nuanced portrait of whom the full Democratic base supports."
Amen to that! What Democrats are doing is essentially handing over decisions about their party to Democrats in largely Republican states, in terms of attitude, ethnicity, and population centers.
At the very least, you need some coastal states with large urban population centers thrown into the mix.
One more thing: get rid of the caucuses altogether and make primaries uniform: one vote for each state resident, for those who care to participate. Just like the final general election. Because why should candidates be penalized by a complicated system or low turnout in high school gyms when most primaries take place all day?
342
@christineMcM
We seem to talk about Iowa all the time after every election and nothing changes. This whole process has been undemocratic in the same manner that our elections are undemocratic. Why cant election day be a day off, because the powers to be want to make it as difficult for Americans to vote as possible.
stop with this outdated system and get rid of the Electoral College and make this important election fair.
Tom Perez get busy.
82
@Tony: as much as I'd love to get rid of the electoral college, it ain't gonna happen. Namely because you need consensus of both sides, and only one wants to change it. Republicans benefit from the electoral college, so will fight this tooth and nail.
Making elections fairer would be easy if both parties wanted them fairer. But only one does, while the other spends all its time figuring out how to prevent voting of minorities and others more prone to voting Democratic.
99
@christineMcM
Many discussions about eliminating the Electoral College Vote are incomplete at best, such as yours.
The Electoral College is a process to minimize any chances of voter "fraud" and not to suppress voter turn out. Furthermore, perhaps if the "states" did not move to the "Winner take all" method currently in use, that many states changed to except for Maine and Nebraska.
And the argument that the Electoral College system favors the smaller states by population is a fallacy since "The Electoral College’s small-state bias had essentially nothing to do with Donald J. Trump’s victory. In fact, he won seven of the 10 largest states, and Hillary Clinton won seven of the 12 smallest states.", quoting a NYT articles from last year:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/upshot/electoral-college-votes-states.html#commentsContainer
3
"Iowa is over 90 percent white."
Hello there, Charles. What do you have against white people?
3
LOVE it! Please include shy voters who wouldn't dare go to a caucus. To me, caucuses are certainly tailor made for Bernie's army of intimidators although even that didn't get him the win...
5
Good post, Mr. Blow. While you're at it, I'd say ditto for the Electoral College.
Regardless of who coined the phrase, insanity still means doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Way past time to vote for sanity while we still can and must.
97
@Guido Malsh The difference being that altering the primary schedule is at the disposal of the party leaders. Altering the Constitution to change the electoral college requires a supermajority vote in both houses of Congress, then three-quarters of the state legislatures, including many who would surrender their electoral advantage. Best to figure out a way to win within the rules in place, as the previous president found a way to do, twice.
8
@Guido Malsh
Not that any democrat would disagree with you about the fundamental unfairness of the EC, but it's not going any way. Civil war is more likely than a constitutional amendment. In fact, civil war is probably the only way you get one, unless we're talking generations down the road where the population/demographics of the US look nothing like today. At that point though, the need for the amendment will be moot.
The simple fact of the matter is that the scarcely populated rural states will under no circumstances give up their power. There is no appeal to justice, fairness, or fundamental democratic principles that will convince them. So short of civil war or an amicable parting of ways, we can really put an end to discussing the prospect of a constitutional change.
2
@Guido Malsh I'd add that insanity still means doing the same thing over and over again, calling the people who don't go along with your idea stupid and expecting different results
2
An excellent proposal.
"Lastly, it wouldn’t require Iowa to fully relinquish its “first in the nation” status, but simply to share it."
Mr. Blow, that is not an argument for your proposal. It is is a point against it!
2
So instead of attacking the systemic corruption in the Democratic Party, both at the Iowa state level as well as on a national level, and the obvious incompetence of some of the players involved, let’s just gloss over that and instead let’s have four corrupt and incompetent primaries at the same time.
That’s your plan?
4
We should have a few rotating regional primaries.
The uncoordinated, time-consuming and hugely expensive caucus/primary system in US is only a small part of what is wrong with Constitutional governance in the US.
It is worth remembering that the Constitution does not mention "political parties" - many of the Founders felt "factions" were antithetical to democratic governance - but the two political parties, with no legitimacy derived from the Constitution, and which in essence are just two tax-exempt organizations, have preempted the entire electoral system for themselves.
Constitutional governance has been on a downward spiral for at least five decades. What we are seeing now (with Trump and the gutless GOP) is an exponential acceleration of that long downward trend. Constitutional, democratic governance in the US is essentially dead - we now have a dictator, legitimized by the recent Senate vote, a sociopath with strong psychopathic tendencies ("I can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and I would not loose any votes"; "Article II allows me to do anything I want...").
To save or reestablish Constitutional governance for our children and grand-children we need a complete re-write of the Constitution, making use of many of the experience of other democratic constitutions, which the Framers were ignorant of - because they only had the very immature British Parliament to use as a model.
(https://www.amazon.com/Our-Democracy-Dying-Unites-Constitution-ebook/dp/B07XN66MNL)
Great idea. Another benefit - candidates wouldn't have to humiliate themselves by eating deep fried Oreos at the Iowa State Fair.
solution: vote against incompetence.
Vote Bloomberg
3
Why is everybody dumping on the Iowa caucus fracas this year?
After the 1968 riots during the Democratic primary, reforms were instituted, and Iowa started the caucus process in 1972. That's 12 election cycles ago. Iowa established it's position in the primaries, not seriously challenged.
Remember the Florida debacle in 2000? A far more important, Presidential election results were delayed, recounted, sued, appealed, and awarded to George Bush, weeks later.
Compared to that, this is a very minor problem, and one that would be fixed relatively easily. Don't forget the republican's complicity here, where they flooded the telephone lines, creating their own DOS attack.
The beauty of Iowa is that in that small stae, politicians have the luxury of trying their campaign spiels in small groups, multiple times, polishing them, and going on to to new Hampshire, another small state.
Imagine, the first primary in a large state, or group of states, where a similar problem could occur, and imagine the magnitude of the problem that creates!
Just because you can dump on an incident, no reason that you should. Especially, a group of reporters of a prestigious paper such as NYT.
3
I like the idea of having a few states at once but not South Carolina. South Carolina is perhaps the most conservative state in the country and one the Democrats have zero chance to win except in a total landslide when it does not matter. k
Key primaries should be in states that are competitive. Spending large sums of limited resources in any state that we have no chance of in the general election is foolish.
14
I am 100% on board with everything Mr. Blow advocates in this column. I like the idea of the "Pace-setter" primaries, but don't see how it will remedy the "Caucus Problem."
Usually, the acid that comes across in his writing is off-putting, but this time is refreshingly different, substantively better, and thoroughly enjoyable. More like this, good Sir, please.
1
This idea of a first round vote is brilliant - and not simply because of the logistical problems with the current systems. A nation-wide first vote after the televised debates would tell us how the messages are received, and even more importantly, how they are being understood - or misunderstood. The campaigns could shift emphasis to address differences by tactics of persuasion. Some terminology, or the way it had been used in media with different agendas, could be explicated. You'd see if voters were concerned more about feasibility or desirability, for instance, and address those concerns more precisely. A persuasive "second round" would aim arguments between candidates at those issues, but respectfully. After all, there will only be one ultimate nominee, and respectful engagement among contenders would pave the way to a more unified and collaborative relationship, whether they go on to build on a winning platform or to cohere as a loyal opposition party. It would also take some of the toxicity out of the campaigning process.
1
very good suggestion. keep repeating it until the networks pick it up.
1
Betcha dollar if trump wins then the Democratic Party will definitely do away with the Iowa caucus and institute a more rational national primary as so many of the commenters here have so commonsensically suggested.
1
I agree with all the commentators that 90% white has nothing to do with the problem.
Should we include SC and Nevada on day one just so Kamala Harris could have done better? Nope! Iowa loved Obama.
New Hampshire represents the east? Really?
The idea of having multiple states on day 1 is intriguing and should be explored. It will be very difficult to agree to which states so maybe start with the letter A and work through the alphabet.
3
Blow makes no secret of his support for Harris, but pretending that her campaign would have gotten off the ground under different primary rules is ludicrous.
Voters rightly saw her as an empty suit.
6
Great article Mr.Blow, we in the Democratic Party pride ourselves on our diversity and yet Iowa and New Hampshire are first? All the time and Money spent there is unbelievable! Your idea of a regional primary is more representative and certainly fair to all candidates! Also just one National primary could level the playing field!
I like your proposal, if we replace Iowa with Indiana and New Hampshire with New Jersey.
1
YES! Why should several top candidates be considering ending their campaigns because a few thousand people chose Pete or Biden?!
1
Tom Perez needs to be canned as the head of the DNC. He's totally incompetent, just as he was with Hilary. James Carville should be in charge; he'd produce a winner. He's got the experience, the DC savvy, a good take on the national pulse. Perez is hopeless, and will lead us to defeat once more.
3
The problem isn’t that Iowa goes first... it’s that the media demand only the top two go on to the next step. That’s crazy.
4
Primaries in September, election in November. How difficult is that? It's ridiculous that we drag this out over two years.
All for it. Can we make it happen by 2024?
There has to be a penalty for using this ridiculous caucus system. Make them an offer they can't refuse: If Iowa uses it next time, their delegates should be excluded from the national convention.
The whole process just makes me sad. Not only did Iowa have an outsize influence on the race, but the party mishandled the results so thoroughly that the incompetence--I'm speaking of you, Tom Perez--only served to boost the GOP's support.
Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire should fall to a time of year that reflects their lack of connection with the party. Here in New Jersey, we don't get to vote until June! Our reward for being good Democrats. I want Booker and Harris and Castro to have a shot in states that reflect their backgrounds and politics. Maybe next time. But next time may be too late, as Trump, McConnell & Co. dismantle the Constitution and mock the two-party system.
Thank you as always, Mr. Blow.
Iowa is what it is. Anyone who misapplies the results from it is being foolish. It's representative of one section of the country and one segment of the voters, it never was anything else. The importance of smaller and less industrialized states is that they are more in number than the big, industrialized ones. We cannot hold together as a continental sized country by focusing exclusively upon highly populated areas nor can we by ignoring highly populated areas. But it's tempting to think so if one seeks to exclude one group or the other from power.
We are not going to change into a country where just majorities of voters are going to be the determinants of national policies. If we end up with forty percent always having to accept the results of the other sixty who could not care less about the forty percent, guess what, illiberal democracy.
3
Don't blame folks in Iowa for the fact that Kamala Harris was a mediocre candidate with no coherent message.
5
How about eliminating the caucus system entirely? Here's a radical concept: one person, one vote. On paper, so that there is a trail. In fact, maybe the whole country could try it!
The Iowa caucus was corrupt top to bottom. they rigged the results at every stage.
1
Thank you Charles for telling us in Iowa how to run our primary process. I should have known that a NY Eastern elite would know far better than us rubes how to conduct our own affairs. The Democratic party is far more urban and coastal. Does that mean that people who dont look or act like you should not have a voice in the Democratic presidential process?? Fix your own problems and leave us alone out here.
4
Good idea. No more "set the wayback machine for Iowa".
Wow Charles endorses a change that gives blacks an out sized voice here. Blacks are only 13% of the general population which is even less of a voting block given the percentage of those that are under 18 years of age. He then wants to downplay the voice of whites who are for more of a larger block then any other individual portion of the Left's identity based political factions. The order the Dems go in doesn't matter at all if they can't count the votes correctly.
5
Not a bad idea, but unlikely to happen for the reasons I outline here (while also providing a more comprehensive suggestion for reform):
https://medium.com/@paulschimek/beyond-iowa-fixing-the-presidential-primaries-55b71eb314a
The Solution IS: Get rid of all the Democrat silliness and come up with some realistic solutions!
(Hint: Democrat says No, No, No, Ain't Gonna Do It!)
2
Help me here for a second. In one sentence the author laments Iowa's outsize influence in the process and in the next he mentions how it rarely winds up picking a nominee let alone the actual President. When will the "swamp" figure out that they just don't understand the electorate. Bern baby burn!!!
3
How about an end to caucuses while we're changing things. High Stakes Square Dancing is dumb, for reasons You've pointed out. If Iowa can't just hold a primary on day 1, they shouldn't get delegates.
"About one in five Democratic primary voters in Nevada are Hispanics."
They are also predominantly Catholic and anti-abortion.
Mr. Blow, your obsession with race continually blinds you to other more important factors.
4
Yeah, take the Party 'urban and coastal'. Absolutely. That was a winning strategy in 2016 and will be one in 2020. Xlnt thinking as usual, Mr Blow.
2
Anna..At least she's not putting Trump Haters in an "irredeemable basket of deplorables"!
Caucuses are nothing more than a carry-over from the 18th century days when a few affluent citizens could decide who was going to run for office.
They are a revolting relic of a repugnant past ... and should be put out with the trash.
Harris never had a chance. She was a prosecutor. They are like priests, they think they are righteous.
How many people of color did she get locked up for drug possession. Anyone associated with that horror can never be president, in my book. That means Amy is also out!
2
An even better solution would be to have all 50 states vote in a primary on the same day, say in mid-May. With the prevalence of social media no candidate needs to do the extensive retail politicking that they do today.
The winning candidate will be the one with the most votes, even if that candidate gets only a plurality of the votes.
The problem is that the political junkie political reporters, starved for stories, have made Iowa into something much bigger than it is or should be
Why not send reporters to cover all the legislation that the Democrats are passing in the House and let the states have their caucuses or primaries whenever/wherever?
The meaningful story is not "three tickets out of Iowa" or who "won" but what kind of legislation the unified Democratic Party would pass if it controlled the Senate and White House in addition to the House. The answer is not in understanding how caucus votes are tallied, but in looking at the hundreds of bills that House has passed under Pelosi's leadership that are obstructed by McConnell
Note that if everyone doesn't have affordable prescription drugs or a higher minimum wage, it is not due to "Establishment Democrats"--it is due to obstructionist Republicans,
1
“Imagine a world in which the first contests were a mix of caucuses and primaries, because different campaigns respond better to different formats.”
No, I can’t imagine that, for the reasons Mr. Blow specifies about the failings of the caucus system — the absence of anonymity being the most damaging. (Senate impeachment trial, anyone?) Now imagine bad weather in February in Iowa putting a further damper on participation. “Retail politics” seems to do just fine in New Hampshire with their primary rather than caucuses.
The idea of having the first contests of a presidential race in small states remains a very good idea. People in Iowa and New Hampshire take their roles seriously. They get to know the candidates and act responsibly in choosing the people they support. There is no sign of prejudice in their choices. This can only be done in small states and provides all of us with guidance in making our decisions later.
The notion that people have to reflect a party's make up seems silly. Seventy eight percent of Americans are officially "white". White people are the most diversified group in the United States. They come from more countries/cultures and have more variety in their time in the United States than any other of the groups in our racial spoils system that take opportunities from white men.
Of course, elections need to be conducted properly. Iowa did a bad job this year. Hopefully they will do better in the future if they get a chance. If not we should choose another small state to take Iowa's place.
3
@Bored
Actually only 61.8% of Americans are non-Hispanic white according to the most recent U.S. Census stats. Expect that number to go lower in the next decade.
@Carl That is a future projection based on government classifications, which are not accurate. Hispanics do not constitute any race. The term refers to people who come from Spanish speaking countries. People from countries like Spain and Argentina are white. Many other countries have significant numbers of white people as well. The best number is 78% white, if it matters. For example the vast majority of black people are in fact mixed race people. Only a tiny number are 100% black or negroid. The spoils system for allocate privileges by race is vastly inaccurate. Similarly the category for Asian includes people from India and China. They hardly are members of one race.
2
@Carl No the US white population is 78%. Counting Hispanics as a race is erroneous. They come from a country where Spanish is the language. Many of them and in some countries the vast majority are white. If you have ever been to Argentina you would see a country of white people with ethnic backgrounds from Spain, Germany and Italian. In addition you should be careful not to call mixed race people as being of one category such as mulatos.
2
This is the first sensible prescription I've heard. It will require that Iowa party leaders can be convinced not to slip their caucuses ahead of your "pacesetter primary" day -- and Republicans are not as likely to care about representing the diversity of the electorate. And that New Hampshire courts don't find that the state law requires them to hold their primary before your new day. Finally, it will make campaigning for president more expensive, because a candidate will not be able to focus all their resources in Iowa and will have to have organizations in four states instead of one. But it is the only solution I've heard that at least seems doable. Most commentators on this issue are long on complaints and short on solutions that aren't based on the fantasy that the DNC can dictate a solution to the states.
1
While Iowa is deservedly getting a lot of attention, the DNC should also be critiqued for changing debate rules. It likely will have the effect of refusing to change rules for three candidates of color (Harris, Booker, Castro) and allowing a white billionaire to participate. The DNC likely is happy that Iowa has overshadowed this larger controversy.
3
Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada all have less population than the average state, and South Carolina is barely above the average. Only Nevada contains a large city. In terms of population and big cities, they are not a good representation of the country.
Someplace like Pennsylvania would give us a big state with some big cities.
We could get a nonpartisan commission to design a new way of selecting candidates for the presidency, but a nonpartisan commission would stack the selection process to favor nonpartisan candidates and a commission of partisans would try to outwit each other and create something that looked unbiased but wasnt. If we wanted a really fair selection procedure, we should have apolitical video game designers do it, since they know how to plant, spot, and eliminate biases hidden in the rules.
1
Yep.
I think you could go further by using the geographic/demographic diversity model Mr. Blow uses here and rotating it every four years in blocks of 5 states so that each block of states gets a chance at being first to have their voice heard (eventually, assuming we still have a democracy). Democratic, fair--that's the point I believe. Strategically, it would create a strong contrast with the R nominating process, maybe even pressuring them to be fairer (too optimistic?).
As to the current caucus results everyone knows that the polling was tainted. The Democrats are not satisfied with the results and the Republicans will make every effort to denigrate the caucus. Therefore there should be a primary in order to obtain fair results. As Bloomberg has offered to support the Democratic party he can start by footing the bill on a re-run.
Let me play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion: Should public resources (machines, personnel, funds) be used for primaries, which are a party's method of selecting nominees? At one time nominees were selected at state conventions or by other means. Primaries are not elections; no one takes office from their results. Yet if even if you're not a member of either party, your tax dollars are spent on this regardless. So why should state and local governments take part in a purely partisan process?
2
Too bad that no true philosopher would ever want to be king and that anyone who wants to be king would likely have no idea what philosophy is all about as this democracy thing is not working out on so many different levels.
4
Or...we could have one single nationwide primary.
2
@Max Alexander
Good luck getting the oligarchy, known as our two party system, to accept that.
1
I like Charles Blow's proposal: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada all hold primary elections on the same day. It would introduce geographic and demographic diversity into our nominating contest. I hope that the states and the parties can agree to improve the nomination process before the 2024 election.
2
Whichever state goes first, there will be discontent. Unfortunately, when Iowa stops caucusing, there will be fewer, if any, old-fashioned campaigns where a candidate climbs on a soapbox for votes.
Yes, Iowa lacks sophistication (witness the antics of Iowa Democratic Party chairman, Troy Price). But still, a savvy, sharp candidate can build a campaign here the old-fashioned way by shaking hands and talking to voters. I don't know if Iowa will remain first in the nation, especially after 2020, but something will be lost if it ends its kickoff.
Joe Biden's campaign set up shop right next door to where I worked, and even though I talked with the staff often, and went next door twice, the workers could have been studying for finals. Their lackluster organization hurt Biden, which everyone saw reflected in the Iowa results.
I work at an old strip mall. Barack Obama, when he was here, set up shop on the busiest street corner in the most diverse neighborhood in the city. He knew what he was doing, and it showed.
This area has multiple meat-packing plants, and a diverse population of 169,405 people — organization, boots on the ground, and a handshake count here. I believe future campaigns, where one-on-one organizational chops disappear, and candidates only attend high-end events and run television ads, will hurt the process.
Okay, Iowa stumbled in 2020, but what will replace the process where everyone and anyone gets to meet candidates and ask their questions directly?
1
I don't like the way Tom Perez has thrown Iowa to the wolves. Never one mention that I have read anywhere about how maybe he should have been keeping a closer eye on things from the get go. For all that the Iowa caucus was a big fail this year, Perez (and the rest of the country) might have given a word of kindness to the literally thousands of well-meaning volunteers who made an effort to bring the evening off.
That said, yes, the process has to change. I like the idea Mr. Blow expresses in this column. Also lots of good ideas in the comments.
It was indeed sad to see some good contenders not really get any traction. Not sure that was Iowa's fault. The whole way we run primaries has to change, including some government funding coming into play somehow to level the playing field.
The Democratic Party in Iowa made an error in handling new technology. It happens very often that new technologies don't function as expected. The strategy that assures no loss of service is duplicated efforts and doubling costs by supporting the previous system and the new system at the same time. That way the recipient of the service receives it in a timely manner. But it seems like utter madness to those who must pay for it. They will howl when they see it and insist that it is not necessary. That probably occurred here.
In any case, the issue is being blown far out of proportion both by the mass media and the campaigns who expected a smooth and efficient process. Too bad. Life is full of unexpected disruptions to our plans. In addition, it just feeds into Trump's and his supporters' heckling.
Some very reasonable solutions, easy to implement, more democratic, more realistic. If only our elections were about getting the best candidates out in front of the electorate, instead of a dog and pony show devoted to the media frenzy that follows the primaries like Great White sharks in a feeding frenzy.
We seem to be much better at circuses than with democracy.
I love this write and his articles but I have a better suggestion. Bring real democracy to the whole US election process, starting with Democratic Primaries. Just count the total votes from all states and the person with highest total votes in the entire nation wins the nomination. Very simple. Then all the states will matter and all the people will matter. No super-delegates, or state delegates, or whatever. Every person's vote will count. And then campaign to do the same in General Election. No more Electoral College or any other non-democratic trickery. People in NY and California who want to vote but their vote is not counted in such non-democratic system will be happy to come out and vote again. People will be more engaged in voting process. These non-democratic delegate counts etc. are just ways to suppress voter turnout. Get rid of all of them. One person, one vote and all votes are equal, regardless of state. That is real democracy we should wish for.
2
Have the first primaries in battleground states. This way the electorate has a much better idea of how "electable" someone truly is.
1
Seems to me that 6 'super' , regional contests, divided over 5 months ( Jan-May ), would be a better path towards a fair nomination process. By regional I'm thinking west of the Mississippi 3 vertical regions border to border i.e. Far west: AK, WA OR,HI,CA- Rockies ID,WY,NV,CO, NM- Plains: ND,SD,KA,OK,TX,MN,MS,AK,IL then divide the east coast horizontally i.e. Deep south, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast. Perhaps the first contest could be the Rockies, followed by Mid-Atlantic, Deep south, followed by Far west, lastly the Northeast followed by the Plains. This way candidates can concentrate their travel time, media market purchases and literally have to campaign in all 50 states.
1
Great thoughts. Seems sensible to use those 4 states, but rather than a mixture of caucus and primary, I think have only ranked choice voting primaries would be a better winnowing down of the candidates. The top performers would make the cut to continue. The top performers would be determined by how the percentages played out.
There is no reason for the same 4 states to always go first. None!
Rather than try to balance out white Iowa and New Hampshire with more diverse states like South Carolina and Nevada on the same day which would favor already established candidates because of the huge cost, let's rotate among more demographically representative states like Colorado, Maryland, Illinois or Florida.
And while we're fixing things, let's get rid of all the caucus' for all the reasons Charles points out.
2
DNC messes up a primary election, now the whole system needs to change?
Despite all of the criticisms about Iowa not representing the majority of voters, the self-selecting population of caucus goers selected an openly gay candidate and a Socialist who actually met Lenin. So, the voices in the Iowa Causus aren't necessarily out of step with the overall party.
The whole point of a drawn out series of seperate primary elections is
A: The presidential election is a series of 50 separate elections. To win the presidency, one must perform well in both coastal and central states.
B: The long process allows candidates to recover from stumbles and tests a winner's ability to avoid flaming out.
Ultimately, the primaries are about fund raising, it isn't the voters in the early states who determine who the candidate will be, it is the fund raising derived from early performance that gives campaigns the cash flow necessary.
Hence, Bloomberg and other successful candidates are able to avoid the confusion of Iowa through self-funding. They are still viable candidates despite not even being on the ballot in Iowa.
Maybe the DNC should hire better coders.
There are no federal elections, just state elections. States should take the names of presidential candidates off their November ballots and permit the Editorial College to function as the Constitution intended.
The Constitution gives political parties no role in government. But political parties persuaded state legislatures to place the names of their candidates on the November ballots. They then persuaded the legislatures to enact laws the require electors to cast their ballots in accordance with the popular vote. Today, a candidate has no chance of becoming president without the backing of the Republican or Democratic Party, Americans can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice, they can even vote for a write-in candidate, but they can only elect a Democrat or a Republican. As a result, partisan politics are tearing America apart.
Today, political parties—not Congress, the Executive Branch or the Judiciary—are the de facto government. Congress empowers party rule by devising parliamentary rules that permit party hacks to control the flow of legislation, determining which bill are brought to a vote,.
George Washington warned us against political parties. He said,
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
1
Easy fix. Dems can do this in 2024. Of course they will have to pay for these primaries and manage them. I'm sure that will go well. Taxpayer money should not be used to benefit political parties.
Kamala Harris could (and perhaps should) have done 'a Bloomberg' and skipped Iowa and NH. The fact she didn't actually argues against her - she fought battles she must have known she couldn't win. Not a quality in a presidential candidate. For the record - I like(d) her a lot, pity she's gone.
Good proposal. We do need to change the nomination process and modernize it for the reality of today and make it more representative of the whole country not just two states.
1
Would this proposal improve the current election system? Yes, but it would only advance the process incrementally from the absurd to the inadequate. If the objective is to make the early primary voting population more representative of the nation, what these four states lack is even one top-tier urban centre. The largest city by a mile in these states is Las Vegas, with a population of less than a million, and a unique combination of economic, environmental and social characteristics.
Would tinkering like this make a difference for the better? Or would picking and choosing which of the current early-voting states are granted outsized influence on candidate selection merely enshrine a new, but equally distorted, obstacle course?
I believe the better solution — one that most ordinary citizens would support — is, first and most obvious, to dump the antiquated and undemocratic Electoral College, and to create a uniform primary system accessible to all voters in all states, either simultaneously or in a relatively tight calendar of regionally and economically balanced tranches.
Too revolutionary? Tell it to the Founders who, fortunately, were unafraid of revolutionary solutions to achieve a working democracy.
2
Here's a much simpler solution - get a candidate we can all get behind.
One that can have a clear winning margin, which inspires voters to come out to vote and who injects enthusiasm for a Democrat candidate.
Because right now there is no such candidate in the Democrat side.
1
Ditch Iowa and New Hampshire. Both anachronisms. SC and NV, too. Let's find a candidate that represents the party, the country, and an electoral vote majority. No more ego trippers staring us down for a year either. Panderers stay home.
Excellent idea but take it a step further. Have 7 "super Tuesday" primaries 3 weeks apart; this year that would go from February 4 to June 9. States grouped in each primary would include roughly the same number of votes needed for the nomination, thus no single date would be more "super" than any other. All would be somewhat regional to save on time, travel and fuel costs and to enable candidates and voters to benefit from the same media. Each must include states with a significant proportion of black and Hispanic voters as well as some rural and urban areas. Thus every candidate would be required to develop and hone messages that appeal to voters across the country and not purely regional, or even one-state, messages. The sequence should be adjusted so that a state like New Hampshire can be in the first group (and thus not have to amend its state Constitution) but the first grouping should include at least several of the states that are "battleground" states in every election including some of the following: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida. The DNC would tweak this from election to election to adjust for changing demographics and voting patterns. However, I believe this approach would be most likely to give minority candidates an equal footing going into the first round and staying on their feet for subsequent rounds, and ensure that candidates who advance are those who appeal to the broadest range of primary and general election voters.
1
I agree. As a voter from California, I don't feel that Iowa particularly represents the rest of the nation. It certainly doesn't represent California's diversified economy, our demographic diversity, our commitment to address climate change, or our many urban challenges. I think your proposal is reasonable, and the states and parties should consider it.
2
@Kris Unfortunately the election is waged in places unlike California.
I think Pennsylvania should go first next time. It's an important swing state that has both urban and rural voters; much more representative of the democratic party than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina (when was the last time the dems won SC anyway??) and Nevada. Nevada is the only one of the first 4 that makes any sense at all currently.
@Elizabeth Cooke Carter carried SC in 1976.
Good idea about the four on one day, but the caucus must go, period. I would support a national primary where we all vote on the same day, a Super, Super Tuesday.
3
If all states held their primaries on the same day, only the candidates with the most financial backing could compete. As is now stands a candidate can build that support gradually as the primary season goes on, as Klobuchar seems to be doing now.
I am sick and tired of reading (well-meant) suggestions of how some national level change should be imposed on the primary election for president. There is no mechanism for doing so. Constitutionally administration of elections is a function of the states. There is no administration of elections at the federal level. Congress can set minimum standards, e.g. the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The naional political party organizations (RNC, DNC, etc.) can set minimum standards for how delegates to their conventions are chosen.
In the case of caucuses the process is administered by the state political party.
In the case of primaries they are administered by the state government election authority (BOE) under laws enacted by, and subject to change by, the state legislature and governor. That is where dates are set and issues such as extended voting days and mail voting are determined. The state BOE
manages the process of selecting equipment, training and paying poll workers, arranging for polling places, and then the process of tabulating the results. Some of this may be delegated to county or more local BOEs.
We can and should push at the state level for better voting laws. At present that means electing Democratic legislatures and governors.
1
First, Nevada has a caucus, very much like Iowa--I hope it will not be as problematic as Iowa's was. Second, I don't think Harris dropped out of the race due to the racial composition of Iowa and New Hampshire--she dropped out because she did not seem to have a clear message that differed substantially from others. This is unfortunate because I found her the most interesting of the candidates--perhaps I was expecting her to reassemble the Obama coalition, which, alas, she was unable to do--but I don't know if she wanted to.
2
Being first, Iowa is only as important as the campaigns & the media makes it. Think in terms of college athletics where most first games are really tuneups for the major school against some low level opponent. Now see Iowa as a tuneup for the Democrats, but of no real importance or significance.
My idea would be to have a Primary Day everywhere and present it as ranked choice voting. The top five can go to debate. Then hold a final Primary Day with just those five candidates and the first choice by all primary voters would be the nominee.
Give everyone the same budget to be funded by donations to the party itself and then split evenly among candidates. To contribute to the election process, you will not contribute to any single candidate but to the Party itself. So this levels the playing field for diversity. This takes lobbyists for a single person out of the equation. A party has to present itself as having a platform and candidates compete to present that platform, but more importantly run on their ability to get that platform accomplished. There would be no bickering about minute details, only about the general principles. Idealistic, simplistic and lacking in details, but in general, in my opinion, a better, less combative approach.
1
The only problem with these suggestions is that, as far as I know, there are state laws in N.H. that mandate that they are the nation's first primary. So to bring other states forward, you would have to overcome state law to do so.
But if we're going to reform this system, and if our Presidential election still operates using the electoral college rather than the popular vote, then I propose that the first states to vote in the primaries should be: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida. These are the states that will decide our elections under the electoral college. If Democrats in these states overwhelming select a particular candidate, you can be more assured that that candidate will win that state.
If we want to keep the same system, more or less, I vote that Pennsylvania goes first. It's a battleground state, fairly diverse, good urban/rural mix, great testing ground for both parties. Then Arizona, then Wisconsin, then North Carolina (or Georgia?). Then Super Tuesday.
1
It doesn't bother me in the least what Iowa or for that matter New Hampshire says with their votes.
They are both predominately white and rural sections.
Give them their prompts.
But they only represent two states out of fifty and the US territories that do vote.
That's about it.
So they are first up.
So what.
It is the media that give Iowa and New Hampshire it's popularity.
Both states to me are like the Groundhog Day we celebrate.
At the end of the day, does the groundhog really predict the weather.
2
There's been a lot of talk about how we should pick a more ethnically representative state to go first. The fact is that whether or not a particular state matches the overall country's demographic, no single state should be entitled to go first. The idea that a single state should hold an out-sized influence on the country's politics is ludicrous. The order of the primaries should be random. If you don't want to do them on a single day so that candidates can build momentum, fine: divide the states randomly (each election cycle) into four groups and do 12-13 states at a time, one day a week for four weeks until we have our nominee.
If about 2,400 of the 2,500 media types who show up in Iowa in February would just stay home and the remainder report the results as interesting but not predictive, Iowa and New Hampshire still have value. Both remain good places for candidates to work out kinks outside the bright lights of the big city. Not unlike the Broadway plays that opened in New Haven to lessen the chance they'd get killed by the critics in NYC.
2
Looks to me that a complete overhaul of the entire electoral system needs to be overhauled. There should be similar, consistent voting opportunities in all states, vastly improved security for collecting and tabulating votes, and change in how we fund campaigns, etc.
3
@Don: Yes, a uniform national law covering federal election procedures would resolve many fairness issues.
4
The Government would decide how every political party chooses their nominees. Caucus, conventions etc. Sounds like progressive socialism!
Presidential primary turnout rates in this country are abysmal.
In large part, that reflects the fact that for most Democratic partisans, it doesn't much matter who is nominee. Any candidate is vastly preferable to the unprepared narcissist ignoramus with authoritarian tendencies presently in the Oval Office.
But in significant part, low turnout reflects the fact that candidacies are made or broken in the early states. Money and attention create momentum.
One partial solutions would be for all states to have ranked-choice primaries. If voters could rank all candidacies, we'd have a ton of information about which candidacies have broad appeal, which have fervent supporters, and which have alienated significant chunks of their base. And we'd have a reason for all voters to eventually weigh in.
Another solution is to simply get rid of primaries. Let all qualifying candidates appear on the ballot in November, and use instant-run-off ranked choice voting to identify the winner.
3
there's a lot of good ideas in this article. but there's also one very weak (if not outright bad) idea: which is, that "the party is increasingly coastal" and "iowa is too white." arguments like that are exactly what drove some [white, heartland] voters over to Trump in 2016. comments like that reinforce the perception that somehow whites don't count, which isn't a message the the democratic party can afford to be a part of.
what went wrong in iowa could have gone wrong with any population diversity. the caucus system is flawed and it was administered with additional flaws. but don't make it sound like the people of iowa shouldn't matter.
9
How about streamlining the whole primary process and making it fairer and FAR shorter? (It is ridiculously long). Have filing for candidacy begin only in the actual year of the election and have one primary date for all states, say, in June. That would mean we'd only now be getting to know who's running. And you know what? That's fine. And candidates would have 6 months to make their cases to the entire nation. Then we'd have ONE primary day, after which a candidate would emerge victorious and have 4 or 5 months to campaign in the general election. This never-ending perpetual campaign season does nothing for the country.
3
This way of thinking discounts the availability of candidates that do not have tens of millions to spend off the bat. They need to gain traction and show a viable campaign to raise funds at a retail level. This can't happen with several more states added or in large states like NY, California, or Texas.
A good idea, but why not take it to the logical conclusion; a national primary day just like the national election day.
All too often, candidates who may well be electable, or at least have ideas that should be heard, are wiped out because of poor showings in the early primaries. Equally often, voters in the later primaries will all too often make their choice, not on what the candidates may say, but on the basis of how well they did in the earlier primaries.
The only real losers in the idea of a national primary day would be the media, who would have to concentrate their coverage on the actual issues instead of easy stories on how this state helped this candidate or that state hurt that one.
5
The debacle in Iowa was a symptom not the problem. The problem is that there is no Democrat Party today. Rather there are several parties each calling themselves Democrat. Their single common denominator is Trump Derangement Syndrome -- hardly the basis for a coherent and cohesive party platform. Specifically; the party of Bernie and Liz is socialist and appeals to a younger intersectionalized, grievance-driven cohort that believes free stuff beats hard work. The second party is that of Joe Biden, which appeals to old timers who look back through rose tinted lenses to a time when Kennedys and Kennedy wannabes strode the landscape. The third party is that of Mayor Pete who attracts the LGBT cohort (and its fellow travelers) and others who want an Obama manque in the White House, because they cannot re-elect the original. One can predict that the chosen candidate from these three parties will have a hard time attracting any serious commitment from the other two. And the hatred of Trump that has been beaten into their heads by the media and an unhinged Congress will not drive many to the polls in order to vote for someone to whom they feel no ideological connection. The outlook for the Democrats looks grim, all the more so because Trump has a united Republican party behind him and a quantifiable track record to show for his first term in office.
10
@JJ Gross ....."Trump Derangement Syndrome"---that's the accurate diagnosis for the symptoms Trump is exhibiting, not the Democrats.
Democrats have legit complaints because the average citizen isn't getting Representation For Their Taxation---what our american colonies demanded when they overthrew King George and his aristos who exploited the colonies.
"Free Stuff"? It's corporate welfare---we all pay for their tax breaks and huge CEO pay. They regulate our govt , not the other way around. Politicians get a cut of the profits with campaign donations.
See Feb 1 NYT editorial on 10th Anniversary of Citizens United.
"More Money, More Problems for Democracy.
Countering private campaign funding with public campaign funding is the most viable way to limit the political influence of the wealthy."
6
@JJ Gross: So you make some pretty hateful comments about Democratic voters and paint caricatures of the Democratic candidates, and then go on to call Democrats “Trump haters”? I think a good look in the mirror is in order here. And by the way: What’s not to hate about locking children up in cages, taking toddlers away from their parents, lying well over 16K times since assuming office, calling opponents infantile nick names, and praising Putin while throwing your own country under the bus? and not to mention dismantling consumer and environmental protection and the New Deal. I hate to see the USA reduced to second world status, just like Russia where the oligarch parasites under Putin’s leadership suck the life blood out of its citizens and the country.
4
@JJ Gross
Are you against social security, workmen's compensation, health care? Would you like to see them severely reduced or cut altogether? Then vote for Trump. Trump wants to unravel the safety net of these programs that means many, many adults and children will go to bed hungry and sick.
Where will Trump put the money he has "saved" by these cuts? That money will be given to corporations who use it to pay their shareholders more dividends.
How about dirty water, seepage from chemical plants, diseased farm animals used for meat. Do you want monitoring of these nauseous agents to stop? Trump wants to please these companies by cutting monitoring. Hello dirty water.
Hello chemicals. Hello spoiled meat.
Trump continues to play the role of the king who satisfies two very different groups. They cannot be satisfied at the same time because they are diametrically opposed. Either he gives to the rich or he helps the rust belt refugees. Whose side has he been on for his whole career? Who has he tricked, cheated on?
HE IS GAMING YOU.
Give your support to the party that has you and your families' needs as a first priority. There is only one party that fits the bill. The democrats passed social security, so we didn't have old people living on the street. The democrats are building a new vision of health care so that everyone will be covered. Think no medical bankruptcy.
Stand with the people.
1
Another half hearted attempt to fix something that seriously needs a complete overhaul.
A single 24 hour voting period for the entire nation is how primaries would be run. Anything else is still a sham.
2
certainly something must be done for the primaries but also foe the elections. Your proposal is fine but I believe that there should be also a geographic concentration of primaries to avoid too much traveling for the candidates and Nevada is too far away from the other three.
Harris lost because she did not show to know what she wanted in her proposals.
And yet a Black man was able to win the nomination with this "unfair" system.
Maybe, just maybe, find a good candidate.
It worked fine in 2008.
But when you have bad candidates, you cry about the system.
6
Addendum..... we should stop relying on daily dosing of MSM because their intention is to make huge profits for their corporate sponsors and owners.
They do a bait and switch and spin and suspense dangles to segue to commercials.
I spent the last 4 years becoming addicted to the anxiety MSM conjures in us over trumpism and trying to stay relevant as a boomer social justice activist. I have seen trumpism take over town and county caucuses of GOP. This is not normal spectrum society , Media must change too. Resist your employers and be truth tellers for voters please. Unify your media message against racialism. We want to see diverse opinions and humans informing us. Accuracy and truth. Not fake news from FOX. MSNBC and CNN. Your focus isn’t correct. Educating the public and supporting minority candidates more would be helpful. Maddow , Rhule, Velshi, are you listening? Help us rid the country of hate. Ok?
Journalism 101 might be helpful at this juncture. You all need review.
1
I second the motion!
1
The Nevada Democratic Party just hired a paid Buttigieg organizer to be their “Voter Protection Director” - they will be using another App. The App for the Iowa Caucus was staffed by Hillary Clinton’s former staffers with Former Mayor Pete having paid $42,000 to this company. The DNC demanded Iowa creating the App two months ago when it saw Bernie winning - it did its job of creating chaos. First rule is to root out corruption in the DNC and the State Democratic Parties. The DNC has a corruption problem they want anyone including Trump instead of Bernie.
1
Mr. Blow reiterates a theme common among pundits like Zerlina Maxwell, that Iowa doesn't, indeed shouldn't, count because it is 91%...(the horror!)...WHITE! It reflects the view that midwestern states that aren't "diverse" enough don't count. They are actually the "unrepresentative" few. The corollary is that the Democratic Party doesn't represent white midwesterners. Please send your donations and your prayers, but understand the DNC doesn't care two bits about you.
4
First states should vary each cycle depending on which ones are most crucial to winning the election through the godforsaken Electoral College. Until that fossilized testimony to slavery is gone, the first state should represent a wider swath of who Democrats need to carry the election that year, top to bottom.
No Jimmy Carter. No Obama. LBJ getting no real challenge. Okay, but be careful what you wish for.
Keep the Iowa Caucuses. They generally pick winners; Carter and Obama were good candidates. So was Donald Trump, George W. Bush.
Charles, Kamala Harris was a terrible candidate and it had nothing to do with race. There are plenty of other African American candidates who are far more qualified. Kamala was a trainwreck!
3
And yet another NYT column pointing out that Iowa is a very, very white state! White = bad, correct? I see this and hear this every day. So, I'm supposed to vote for the party that sees my race as an indictment? Really? Keep it up, Dems!!
5
Who would you rather have as the nominee? Buttigieg (mayor of a very small city in white Indiana) or Senator Harris? Not even close. And while you're at it, read the background of another former mayor, of a major city, who became a U. S. Senator, a Rhodes Scholar who went to Stanford (BA, MA) and Yale Law School, and who is more qualified by light years. Yep, Corey Booker, not even on a ballot. What a joke.
It’s all about blacks and whites with you, isn’t it Charles? I suppose you are forced into that view because the policy choices offered by the left are so vacuous. For some reason you do not understand that a persons’ political views can exist independent of their skin color. You Democrats have taken the black vote for granted for years; you deliver a half black President with the promise of unprecedented reform (indeed, although I did not support President Obama, I though he had a unique historic opportunity to move race relations forward; he unfortunately made things worse) and the Democrats deliver what? A poorly designed health care boondoggle that massively increased costs for pretty much all Americans who pay for things; crippling regulations that chocked business growth and jobs, etc.
President Trumps’ economic success has actually been pretty simple ..... just pretty much reverse every go-along to get-along policy adopted by presidents Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.
I think the American people are much more colorblind than you believe, much more interested in results that make their lives better. AND, that’s where the Democrats fail....it’s the policies; it’s the inaction; and it’s the perpetual wrong actions.
2
Get rid of Caucasus period.
Great proposal, Charles! Please forward it to Tom Perez and the DNC at your earliest convenience. They really, really need some help over there!!!
Excellent idea Mr. Blow. A quibble with the states for the first primaries: California, Texas, Florida, and New York. End the madness, quickly...
Let’s be clear - Democrats are not immune to white privilege aka “we have always done it this way.” This Iowa will stay as it is despite your sound reasons and alternatives.
A perfect, well thought out solution, Mr. Blow. Thank you!
Yes, it is time for a change!
You are still on Bernie fast, you won’t mention his name, unless you can bash him, you seem to have missed that opportunity in this column.
1
These arguments about the need to deflate some of Iowa’s importance have of course been around for quite a long time. Hopefully, change will now come. Here are some other ideas: https://epaper.springfieldnewssun.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=8c1baf45-e2e9-4c0f-b17f-cc35a24b12ee&pbid=6553bde4-6f9f-4e22-9ccc-4f84dc38dcd6&utm_source=app.pagesuite&utm_medium=app-interaction&utm_campaign=pagesuite-epaper-html5_share-article
Excellent idea!! Let's do it.
P.S. I can't help but see the post just below me as I type this, and it says, "I never agree with anything Charles says. That's because he is always wrong." Actually this stated attitude is what's REALLY WRONG with the United States. Charles Blow has some of the best insights into American problems of anyone that I read.
Good but no cigar. The better solution is to have all primaries on the same day.
Here's a radical idea. Limit primary campaigns to six weeks, beginning on Memorial Day, with each party having topic-focused public debates each week. Limit campaign expenditures (including PACs) and especially television advertising. At the end of the six weeks, each state, territory, and DC will have a primary in which all candidates who get a minimum percentage (5% is a good number) get delegates in proportion to their vote tally. Now, the conventions become the formality that they currently are, and the real work of the delegates will be hammering out platforms.
1
Please don’t turn the Iowa Caucus into “Hilary’s Emails”. It has been a less then stellar performance for the Democratic Party but highlighting it so often and so dramatically is a mistake in reporting, again. It is not equal to the corruption and depraved behavior coming out of the White House and equal reporting requires emphasis that is not equal.
Correct. All those American elections traditions are old and tired, let them go already. Anyway all other political traditions are being shred to pieces by the current regime.
Charles,
I think you nailed it..
The solution to the DNC and IDC's problem is a fundamental reorganization of laws and regulations as they pertain to the very nature of political parties.
As it stands, political parties are corporate entities that, as recently as last year, were found by the courts to be entitled to cheat, if cheating is what they desire.
IDC has certified an caucus whose worksheets are riddled with math errors and their lawyer says "“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process,”"
"The phrase 'two plus two equals five' ('2 + 2 = 5') is a slogan used ... most notably the 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. In the novel, it is used as an example of an obviously false dogma that one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans promoted by The Party in the novel."
This is Orwellian and we are talking about the "good" party.
We need to elect Bernie Sanders so he can, as president and head of the Democratic party, finally shape it into a democratic institution, rather than the oligarchic tool it has increasingly become, indistinguishable from what the Republican party is now.
This is a dangerous moment in time - one that may well benefit the most dangerous man on the planet.
Shame!
2nd submission 6:53 pm PST
"caucuses are undemocratic anyway, ...."
This is a very new, and dangerous, view of democracy. The very fundamentalks of American democracy have been established during town meetings (funded, fe, by the Rooseveklt government) where ordinary people showed up and participated in civil society. Nothing was off the table (speakers attacked Fascism; they defended Fascism, capitalism... etc). As Jill Lepore writes: "Asking people about the meaning and future of democracy and listening to them argue it out is really only a way to get people to stretch their civic muscles. "
What Blow, and identity politicians are trying to achieve is nip the dialogue in the bud. It can only be because they are not confident enough to debate folks with different points of view on equal terms. This - suppression of free speech - is what identity politics is about. You should win the argument not because of what you say but because you belong to a privileged, protected, group of people.
3
Blame us. And the media. We are idiots for placing such outsized importance on the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s like whittling down the possible World Series contestants based on the results of the first two weeks of April games.
Great idea!
Mr Blow, you're just too reasonable to fit into this gumbo we call a society. But thanks!
First, I agree that Iowa and NH should not be the pacesetters for the Dems. Also that caucuses need to go the way of the Dodo bird, for the reasons you state.
But why even keep Iowa and NH as firsts? What sort of blackmail are they holding over the parties to retain this right? Why not have Wyoming and Montana or North Dakota be the first? Just joking, but they have as much "right" to going first as Iowa and NH.
I'd expand on your suggestion and break the country up into maybe four groups, each one with a mix of geographic and demographic electorates, and all using an open primary system. On this last point, I would suggest that people be allowed to register for the party holding the primary on that day, BUT...to prevent "sabotage" by Republicans or Democrats voting in each other's primaries to skew the results, if you register to vote in the primary under a party, you must maintain that membership until after the upcoming election. This wouldn't prevent anyone from voting for whomever they want in the general election, but it might make people think twice before giving up their party membership for the purpose of disrupting the other party's primary.
Whatever is done though has to be done before the next cycle of primaries.
64
@Kingfish52 Hawaii moved to an open primary a few decades ago and I still think it was a mistake. The prior system did not require actual party membership but a declaration of which ballot was desired for a first time voter. After that you were tied to that party unless you sat out one primary after which you could request either ballot. This system prevented sabotage voting, which has happened in Hawaii since the change, but did not require actual party membership. As far as the right to vote, I don't think it is violated. Everyone has a right to vote in a general election but not necessarily in a primary which is actually a party function, even if assisted by a state. Another more radical change would be to get government completely out of primaries and require that they be both run and financed by the parties rather than taxpayers generally.
1
@TH The Prior system is along the lines of what I think should be implemented to prevent the "sabotage", so I agree with that point.
But turning the primaries - the process by which WHO is nominated - over to the parties is a mistake. In fact I think a lot of the problems we have are because we're limited by what our two parties offer up for choices. I really think we need to adopt a parliamentary system where multiple parties are in play, and they have to form alliances to govern. But that's not going to happen in my lifetime.
3
@Kingfish52 I've read somewhere that New Hampshire has to be the first primary because it's a state law, and the constitution says the states determine their own manner of running elections. But it seems to me the party should be able to tell New Hampshire, "Fine, hold you primary whenever you want, but the party simply won't grant you any delegates unless you do it our way." What is New Hampshire going to do? They could refuse to have a state funded primary at all, forcing the party to do a caucus or something like in Iowa.
1
Certainly, the world might be a marginally better place if the Iowa caucuses were replaced by a more representative initial primary process. But all the incessant hand wringing by the pundit class seems rather overdone. And self-serving.
A delay of a couple days in getting the full Iowa results was not a crisis in democracy. No one has contended that the final tally was rigged, hacked or otherwise faulty. It was just a few days late, that's all.
So what is the real issue here? The delay in releasing full and reliable caucus results was only a media crisis, nothing more. All the cable news channels had panels of political experts waiting breathlessly to analyze the import of the results as well as correspondents in the campaign headquarters of the candidates waiting to gauge their immediate semi-spontaneous reactions. The Times and other major newspapers had made similar commitments of time and resources.
And then suddenly -- there is nothing to report! All the panelists reduced to sitting around looking at the clock, making small talk and complaining about the wait. Reporters on the scene gulping coffee and trying to stay warm. TV viewers drifting off to a late night movie or to bed.
A big media event that flopped. An industry disappointment, to be sure. But not a national crisis.
90
@woofer Good comment. Gave me a chuckle. My thoughts exactly.
6
@woofer. . a big media event that flopped . . good one . . meanwhile here in DC . . .
7
@woofer That is not at all what the article is saying. There are two criticisms.
1. Caucuses are bad.
2. Iowa is demographically different from the democratic party.
The logistic failure of Iowa is a concern. But it is not anywhere near as important as the logistic failure of the democratic party. IMO, the DNC ruined the primary process by forcing candidates out by excluding them from the debate stage, months before a single vote was cast.
The article points to Kamala Harris giving up when faced with low Iowa polling. Somehow we democrats have to stop making POLLS the deciding factor. POLLS simply don't matter (or Hillary would be President). Let voters decide. And ideally, early votes in a State that is less weird in process and demographics.
12
How about having a single nation wide primary using Rank Choice Voting in which voters rank candidates by preference? This would give everyone an equal say and not favor one state over another. It would shorten the process allowing the wining candidate to concentrate on the general election.
154
If no candidate gets a majority of the pledged delegates, the Democrats should do a national ranked choice vote this year and avoid the claim of a brokered convention.
10
@Pete The general election is a marathon. Making the primaries an all or nothing approach would eliminate the self-correcting process of initially selecting the wrong candidate.
Seeing how candidates perform over a series of races gives us a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. The zeal of the first states can be over-ridden by the wisdom of later-voting states.
First step to any problem solving process is define the problem; in this case it is bad software put together by the DNC.
7
@Pete Then our candidate would be Bloomberg or someone with huge corporate backing lined up because a process that puts all primaries in one day means every candidate must campaign nationwide from the start, which only the richest can do. As it stands, a minor candidate can boostrap attention and funding by simply being able to campaign in a small number of states at first and managing to resonate with the citizens. But ideally it should rotate so it isn't always the same states.
2
Personally, I'd like to see an end to the caucus system, entirely. I find it undemocratic as I find the Electoral College. However, unless both primaries and general elections have some type of public financing, candidates are limited in competing on a level playing field in large states initially by how much money they raise. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Blow that the initial states must reflect the diversity of the Democratic Party. This must be a top priority for the (DNC) in the next cycle.
Finally, there must be a better way to choose presidential nominees than the years long process we now have in the US. Other democratic countries seem able to choose elected leaders in a much shorter time frame.
169
@Mary Scott
I agree with you about the need to have a better, shorter way to choose presidential nominees. The process certainly doesn't benefit We The People, far too many of whom are exhausted and bored by the time election day arrives. It's no wonder voter turnout is so low.
The question of who does actually benefit from extended campaigning is the media. And they will lobby hard against any changes to this system. Until campaign finance reform puts an end to candidate fundraising, I'll wager that Presidential candidates would relish a briefer campaign season for this reason, too.
Our system is an absurd one which might once have made sense when candidates traveled by horse or train. Transportation and technological changes have altered our lives in myriad ways. Time for campaigning to reflect that.
21
@Mary Scott The advantage that other democratic countries have is that for the most part they are parliamentarian democracies. The population of say, Germany, knows well in advance who the leaders of the Greens or SDP or CDU are. There is no primary in the American sense and candidates are put forth by the political party. Thus the general election is not so much a popularity contest, but (ideally) a choice between party platforms. (And the Germans vote on a weekend) There is much to study and appreciate in the parliamentary system. What we have developed over the course of 230 years is a primitive, money and media influenced, wild wild west political system that I speculate would embarrass the enlightened founders of this country who looked to build a symmetrical well-ordered political system. (Much to criticize when studying the founders, but that is a topic for another day - 1619 Project shout-out here!!!).
9
@Mary Scott America has the longest continuous form of government on Earth. The "advantages" of the countries you cite required bloody revolutions (France) and throwing an entire continent into war (twice, looking at you Germany).
The Constitution was built with an amendment process, so use it.
Why does one state get to go first and others go last? It breeds inequality and makes others feel left out.
I live in Ohio and I am voting no-matter-what in our primary. But I know for a fact some people in my state won't be voting because we're after super Tuesday. And they have every right to feel that way. What's the point of voting when the Nominee is probably already determined by the first week of March. I can't imagine being a voter in a state like Wisconsin (April 7th) and Pennsylvania (April 28th). These are vital battleground states.
Standardizing a date for primaries makes the process more egalitarian and less confusing for voters. A set date could do wonders for voter turnout.
239
@South-Asian Americana
New Mexico (June 2) agreeing
5
@South-Asian Americana California just moved ours up from it's usual spot in June. 12% of all Americans live in California...let me repeat: 12% of the country lives here in this one-of-fifty-states state, and usually have zero say in this process.
8
@South-Asian Americana - It boggles one's mind why a federal election permits so many inconsistencies across the states.
If American democracy had a powerful champion in government, the focus on the absurdity of the Iowa caucus should engender an entire overhaul and binding commitment to overhaul the electoral procedures in the USA.
4
Caucuses should be eradicated. Primaries only. And great idea Charles Blow re Iowa, NH, NV, SC on the same day.
This is a great idea, but could go even further.
We need a kickoff to the Democratic Primary that reflects the real makeup of the country, not some outdated Norman Rockwell ideal.
The early primaries took on particularly outsize importance in The Age of Television. They gave a relatively monolithic media a picture to broadcast, to define what the country is supposedly looking for. No surprise, then, that this image making would begin in states reflecting the dominant ideal of white, rural America.
But we’re no longer any of that, nor need we sustain nostalgia for it as a basis for establishing our country’s identity.
No, Houston - America’s most cosmopolitan city - would be a better starting place; California - America’s most diverse state in every way - would be a good starting place; Chicago - symbol of both America’s strength, and strife - would be a great starting place.
These axes of political, economic, ethnic, religious and social diversity are already the most representative, and will become more so in the future (with the possible exception of Houston, which may have to evacuate due to climate change flooding).
This is what a visionary DNC should be thinking about; but of course, it’s not there yet, still making its mad scramble to find any white moderate male to hold onto as the last vestige of its past.
Reminds me of Queequeg’s last act as the Pequot is sinking into the sea, at the end of Moby Dick.
1
Why not New York, California, Illinois, and Texas?
1
Only a few well-financed candidates could afford to run.
Naive columns relating to Iowa that allow the DNC Chair, Tom Perez, an upfront self-exculpatory bit of nonsense (we're gonna really look into this!) are destined for the trash bin. Mr. Blow, Democratic Party leaders did this. Is it possible for you to pull this column back so that you can get it right? Start with accountability, because if you don't there won't be any. Take names.
All our troubles go back to us having a duopoly for our stupid political system. Get rid of all the parties once and for all.
1
The DNC's real problem is their election-rigging. Let's talk about how Sanders took Iowa by popular vote and the delegates handed it to Corporate Pete. It doesn't look good at all. We've seen this.
1
@Fern Iowa is a Caucus state, not a primary state. The DNC has already implemented many changes that were requested last time around by the Sanders campaign. It seems that you've just come to seethe at your nominee of choice not getting his desired outcome.
@C.M. Seems? To you, perhaps. The DNC implemented changes, but it seems to me that if the changes were effective, we would no longer have the problem of voters supporting a particular candidate, and delegates negating their votes. I used to believe the Democrats would handle our votes honestly too. The numbers tell us otherwise. The DNC changes were for the sake of claiming to have changed the system, in an attempt to mollify people who object to having their votes written off. The party that emerges to represent voters will get those voters.
Four years from now we'll be having the same conversation. It's no different than what happens about gun control following a mass shooting - lots of talk and no action. I look forward to a reprint of this article in 2024.
1
Make it even simpler... by time zone, so only 4 primaries with a month between each... using existing, regular voting apparatus
Get rid of the whole electoral college and replace it one vote per person in one day (Sunday so it is fair to working folk, Jesus will understand).
Done.
1
The whole primary process is a total joke! Iowa then New Hampshire then South Carolina with tens of millions of dollars wasted. It's time for a 21st century process that holds, like the election itself, a national primary using mailed hack-proof, poll location and hours proof ballots with rank-order voting sent to every registered Democrat. It's simple, inexpensive, fast and gives the candidate the time to focus on the November election without the reptitious, mind-numbing debates for votes in unrepresentative states. Let's turn Super Tuesday into National Primary Day.
Enough is enough!! I go to Iowa about four times a year from St. Louis, Missouri and there is np way that I could function in Iowa. My friends are African Americans and I am too. There is no way that the State of Iowa represents America. We all know what to do and it is time that the first in Iowa is relinquished. Illinois is a better alternative or as Charles Blow suggested the four states but not just Iowa. Iowa is a bad barometer for selecting the actual President. Time to let go!!
Why Democrats have anything important to do with a State that choose Chuck Grassley as Senator, is beyond me.
Good idea.
Have a few rounds of primaries, all on the same day, each with geographical diversity.
Mr. Blow makes a lot of sense. As it stands, Iowa is worth few delegates, but matters due to the momentum it gives a candidate. But, Iowa and New Hampshire function as primaries to remove candidates of color. This is ridiculous. Iowa and New Hampshire should not get to remove great politicians from the field.
As for caucuses, I agree with Mr. Blow. They are arcane and undemocratic. Some will argue that you get to have a healthy conversation at these events, which makes them more democratic. How can a system that leaves out most of society be more democratic?
How do we make this happen already? Please don't tell me it is because Iowa says no. It just can't be that ridiculously lame of a reason. Maybe it made sense at one time but now? No. No sense. I would like the DNC grow a backbone on this one. It is critical that, if nothing else, Iowa's disproportionately loud voice is quieted.
I need to put this out there because only one comment here mentioned something that has bothered me since the news broke that the caucus results had some “irregularities” that needed review. Today an article disclosed that there were math errors on some of the worksheets used to assign delegates, and possibly that is what’s meant by “irregulariites”. But the comment I read here mentioned hacking...and that’s where my antenna have been tuned.
The DNC hired and bought an app from a company called “Shadow, Inc.” It was apparently not tested, and reports that it was somewhat confusing have been made. I believe I read that the DNC is not blaming the “Irregularities” on the App. But suppose that someone knowledgeable of the code in the app could have been bought, to allow a sophisticated agent access, and that in fact, the same ol, same ol folks in Russia actually were able to interfere in some specific way, enough to cause these Irreularities to cast doubt, once again, on the DNC’s ability to run things. And how about if nefarious agents, posing as mild mannered Iowan caucus goers, were involved in those gyms and city halls where ballots were cast and tallies made?
After all that has happened, should we expect the DNC to report such suspicions if malfeasance was detected? - or would they just put a bland face on it by calling the attack, “Irregularities”? Like the electoral college, a small group of people is easier to hack than an entire country...
Until the Electoral system is done away with--it is important for Democrats, in states that maybe be they mostly white or Afro-Americans or Hispanic Americans or an other ethnic group. I see no reason why Democrats don't appeal to rural communities--each and every one at one time has Democratic senators. Sure, Democrats give-up on these states and we will go down the drain with Trump, and our beloved country will never be what it was meant to be, and that is why we are mostly a country of our former foreigners.
Democrats should just have a national primary all on one day. No States should ever have caucuses. Just make sure the counting is not done on an app. !
The GOP likes it just where it is.
Just saying: state legislatures make the determination whether to have a primary or a caucus or whatever. Not the DNC. Not the RNC. Not the House and Senate. Charles Blow blew it when he left out this very important fact.
When are the democrats going to tell the fine people from Iowa, New Hampshire, SC, etc the truth? “We think you’re great, unique and special, but once we change the electoral college, you won’t matter in the general election anyhow.”
1
Probably won't happen. Makes too much sense.
I like this idea or the idea another NYT columnist suggested of making Michigan and Florida first or any other two more diverse and populous states. Ohio and Washington? New York and Texas? Anything other than what we currently have.
This isn’t a bad idea, and certainly worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, Blow drags race into it. Iowa is too white. Well, if Democrats could unite around some actual ideas rather than the multitude of identities, this wouldn’t be an issue.
One step closer to eliminating the electoral college. Democrats would rather focus on their coastal strongholds rather than trundling though Iowa with all the hogs,corn and provincial rubes.
If election day is 1 day, why not have primary day as 1 day?
1
Why not have all primaries on the same day?
Trump couldn’t have chosen a better start to he 2020 race than the Iowa caucuses, an antiquated, unfair, ridiculous process for reasons described here. And the Iowa Democratic Party couldn’t have created a worse fiasco than they did. And the National Democratic Party couldn’t have done worse than to sanction this process and to let it play out without even so much as simple beta-testing, including the failed app. Democrats don’t deserve to win if they keep shooting themselves in the foot, and this election couldn’t be more important. Perez needs to go, the Democratic Party needs to stop prioritizing the the status of Iowa and New Hampshire, and Democratic voters nationwide need to tell the party that they are sick of this fumblebum process which courts disaster.
It’s that careening media focus that worries me the most.
It'd be nice to have just a shred of actual democracy somewhere in the United States given all the preaching this country does about 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'the will of the people.
In the Iowa caucuses in the first round, here were the vote totals in Iowa Caucus Round 1:
Sanders 43,699 24.7%
Buttigieg 37,596 21.3%
Bernie won the vote.
Then there was the vote in Iowa Caucus Round 2:
Sanders 45,842 26.5%
Buttigieg 43,274 25.1%
Bernie won the vote again.
But somehow, in Iowa's great Caucus wisdom, Buttigeig was awarded 564 "state delegate equivalents" and Sanders was awarded 562 (two less than Buttigieg).
The Iowa Caucuses essentially have their own version of the Electoral College that disregards the popular vote and awards the victory to the runner up.
Isn't that special ?!
And out of Iowa's 600,000 registered voters, only 176,000 bother to caucus.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html
The United States needs to exit the Dark Ages of fake democracy and start extending some real voting rights to its citizens in all 50 states instead of remaining stuck and powerless in our archaic colonial-era fossilized Constitution that just can't seem to master modernity, democracy or representative government.
America's great for undemocratic outcomes, but that stinks for most of us.
This country needs an amended Constitution and a sweeping new Voting Rights Act.
Vote for sweeping democratic change on November 3 2020.
1
That you Mr Blow as always for speaking things as they are, and then providing solutions to the problems you address. Those 4 states would likely change the entire process for Democrats. And next step - abolish the racist electoral college. The old tropes about small or rural states never getting presidential candidate attention without the electoral college is dead and buried, with social media and virtual presence we no longer need worry about that.
Democrats vote as of your life and democracy and free press depend on it in November, because they do!!!
Thank you Mr. Blow....the Ancient Greeks learned and improved their democracy and so can we. We seem so stuck, worshipping the past and precedent, when it no longer works for us. Do we want a democracy, a truly representative democracy? Out of this pain, these painful times, hopefully we will arrive at some real change.
1
Democrats should abandon the open primary system and go back to a system that actually worked to select electable candidates - a convention run by and for the people that actually work year-round to elect Democratic candidates. Open primaries have been a disaster for both parties. They routinely select extreme candidates who do not share the values of the party or the country.
1
That will be extremely undemocratic, considering two-parties monopoly on power in the US.
How about this solution. The leaders of the DNC take ownership and act responsibly when it comes to their duties to the party instead of just letting things happen as they do.
3
@Volley Goodman Tom Perez, as was his predecessor, a lousy leader.
Nobody would have ever heard of Barack Obama without the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary leading off the parade.
Nobody would have heard of Howard Dean or other grassroot populists who can afford to go door to door in Iowa knocking for votes but can't afford the very expensive media campaign necessary to reach voters in most states.
I realize the Establishment Democrats don't want upstart candidates or Populist uprisings, but Iowa allows for anyone to become President...even a back benching no name junior Senator from Illinois...or a baby faced Mayor of a small town in Indiana...
2
Charles, I usually agree with you but this time I think you have gone for a half-measure. Let's go all the way to real reform. I propose a national ranked primary, probably around Labor Day, with "one person one vote" as the standard. Use the conventions to approve the results and select a vice president, likely the runner-up, and then campaign until election day in November, preferably changed to a Saturday when more people can get out to vote. And to further promote real reform, let's abolish the archaic electoral college so that we truly have a representative democracy, and eliminate the lame duck session of congress when mayhem can ensue. As the folks in AA say, "half-measures avail us nothing." If we are putting in the effort to reform our creaking system, let's go all the way.
5
Better still, have the primaries go in order of number of federal tax dollars sent to the federal government with California going first and the each of the next states can be bunched together in order of wealth. That would leave states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Kentucky until last, but that would also keep the least informed voters until last too.
5
Recount all the Iowa caucus votes now. Or be prepared for tricky Trump to invalidate the entire election.
2
For sure Iowa and New Hampshire must never go first again.
Second, all caucuses should be done away with. They are not democrat. Did you know folks were doling out chocolates for switching sides? Seriously. Is this the U.S. or second grade room monitor election?
Also their population is more elderly this time around? How many of those moderates did not even travel to the sites?
1
Here's a heretical thought: do away with the entire months-long process and hold the primaries nationwide on the same day.
We do not hold presidential elections piecemeal (or any other election, for that matter). Imagine: California votes for president on Nov 3; South Dakota and Michigan two days later; Georgia, Oregon, and New York in early December, etc. What a ludicrous thought! It is bad enough that time-zone differences allow voters in Hawaii to (potentially) be influenced by results from polls that closed hour earlier on the East Coast. Why make it deliberately worse; why all but ensure that the preferences of the first to vote will influence the votes of those who follow? Why accept the ridiculous premise that the candidate who fails to win Iowa's precious 41 delegates is doomed - when another 4000 have yet to be assigned?
And yet this is what the primaries do, distort public opinion and the election outcome on a massive scale. And all we boldly discuss is whether we should have four "first in the nation" primaries on the same day? FOUR? Let's make that ALL, and finally break with at least one of the leftovers from the 18th century that keep this country from getting a little closer to becoming a democracy.
2
Start with four states in primaries but take away Iowa permanently. Michigan would be a better bet.
1
Absolutely true, people aren't able to get off work or find child care to get to a caucus. They created the satellite caucuses to help with this problems. When it turned out that those caucusses voted overwhelmingly for Sanders, Buttegieg complained and had the DNC lessen the value of the delegates the candidate won there. One could call it racist or elitist or one could call it cheating but if you do you're a conspiracy theorist or a poor sport.
2
Joe and Mika Scarborough are at it again: In 2016, they pushed for Trump and now they’re trying to kill Senator Warren and building Bloomberg up. Yes, “Mike can do it and can be the only candidate to go against Trump,” - he has the money- they say. Their end game is that if Scarborough runs for office, he’ll have access to NY donors. It’s disgusting to see how the Scarborough’s are destroying the Democratic Party
1
@Ted I think you are giving Joe and Mika too much power. They don't have that much influence, but they do have an entertaining early morning way to start my day. Why would Joe want to run for office (again)? He probably makes more money, has more influence in his current position. And what party would he be a candidate for? His former Republican party has changed beyond recognition, but he hasn't joined the Dems as far as I know, despite his marriage to Democrat Mika.
The only solution is to have one day where everyone votes in a primary and I am disappointed that Mr. Blow did not state this. But the media loves this bread and circuses show because they make billions on it. The ruling class loves these shows because they get lobbyists to pour money into their campaign funds. The corporations and the wealthy give money and in return get to hold a puppet string.
If Americans are going to insist upon dragging the election process out then divide the country up into 4 parts with near equal numbers of people and in different regions of the country. Then Group 1 votes on Sat. Group 2 on Sunday, three goes on the next Saturday, and 4 on Sunday. That way the primary is over in 2 weeks. Then you can rotate the groups. We also need to put an end to the Dems and GOP controlling the election process.
2
While Iowa’s vote-counting fiasco was awful, I applaud the leadership of the Iowa Democratic Committee for admitting the errors and now working to prevent a recurrence.
There was no sadly laughable denial of error like with Trump’s claim that a hurricane was projected to strike Alabama or his maintaining he had more people at his inauguration than Obama.
There was no cover up, unlike Trump and the Senate Republicans of the president’s abuse of power with Ukraine.
No, the Democratic leadership’s goal is to find and report the truth. Contrast this approach with Trump’s lying. As of October 2019, the Washington Post notes that Trump had made over 13,000 false or misleading statements.
The Democrats here should be criticized for the mistake, but praised for speaking the truth. Trump is a lying scoundrel and should be treated accordingly.
1
1) Three diverse states, using
2) Ranked-choice voting
3
Why do we need caucuses and electoral college system in democracy in 21st century?
1
Blow’s proposed solution is reasonable. But with regard to Kamala Harris, her biggest problem was that she created a dysfunctional campaign team - with both her sister and another campaign director trying to run the show.
If Iowa continues in its present form after this disaster, it is yet another example to Democratic voters that the “fix is in.” Let’s face it, we’re the party of cats—as in having to herd cats, while Republicans fall in line like well trained dogs. (Yes, I’m a cat lover.) So let’s celebrate our diversity, our refusal to fall in line. Change up the primary process so that it is truly representative (I.e. ban the caucus in favor of an easy to do paper ballet like in Washington State) and include multiple regions in the first round as suggested. Stop trying to exert so much control, DNC. It only builds resentments that harm unity when the real election happens.
What the organized disarray in Iowa should teach the democrats is that an unleashed Trump will pull out all the stops to retain power. Hacking an election, denying people the right to vote, spreading misleading information, all of that is "chump change" after Trump walked out of the impeachment court room successfully blocking evidence and witnesses.
Given his neutering of Justice & FBI, there are no limits to the crimes Trump can commit without repercussions. This is a dream come true, Al Capone style. Own the cops and loot as much gov money as humanly possible while flying Air Force One to play golf every weekend in FL.
Iowa was just the beginning.
Mr. Blow, you have left out one rather difficult truth. President Trump won Iowa by ten percentage points in the last election. Perhaps early primary states for the Democratic Party should be states that Democrats have a chance of winning in November. As it is, Iowa and South Carolina are strongly Republican in November, while New Hampshire and Nevada are toss ups.
So instead of calling it the “Pacesetter” Prumary, why don’t we call it the “Let Republicans Pick Their Opponent” Primary.
1
In no other democracy are individuals required to campaign for two years... And then two major parties dribble out nomination results over a period of months? Are you joking?
As Will Rogers said: "I don't belong to any organized political party. That's because Tom Perez is in charge."
"Involve all regions of the country in a shared first round of voting."
Ok, four states would "involve all regions of the country". That's Iowa and three other states. Got it.
Why not just have all of the primaries on the same day. How about the first Tuesday in May?
Mr. Blow: Great idea. I have ???wondered??? for years why these ethnically non-representative states are first to report on the field of candidates. Your idea would provide a real ethnic cross-section of voters early-on in the election year and provide real information on who the D-electorate favors. Your idea woud give the D-Party Leadership early info and more time to make changes as required by the results. I agree that voting Iowa and NH provides nearly no info about how the country will vote.
I think Mr. Blow is a prisoner of the moment. 10 days from now no one will care about the delegates won in Iowa. Let it play out. Don’t be like a New York Giants whose opinion of the team, coaches and it’s players swings widely every quarter or even each play.
Gimme a break. Every registered Democrat in the country gets a pin code in the mail in the summer. Didn’t get your pin, you’ve got 6 months to figure it out. During one week, everybody votes online. Security is enforced by having people enter their pin and Democrat ID number. Pin and ID don’t match the record? Vote does not count.
This way, the primaries can be reduced to a period of 6 months or so.
@Norm Vinson In many states, including mine (TN), voters are not registered by party. When we show up to vote in a primary, we can choose Dem or Repub. And the next voting season we can choose another party.
Given the examples of the Caucus math worksheets in another NYT article, we need to have remedial math and English courses in any state prior to participating in a caucus. (And increase educational funding with improved outcomes.)
I am struck by Charles Blow and others who get upset when their candidate didnt win. In 2008, Obama won Iowa. Did Charles call for the end of the caucus? Similarly, Citizens United was the worst ruling by the Supreme Court until the media went completely silent with HRC raising 2x the amount as Trump. I am a never Trumper but the media does itself no favors in its bias and hypocrisy
Right, Charles Blow, let's take action! All regions of America must be involved in primary voting on the same day for the presidential and legislative legislative branches of government. Iowa and New Hampshire have never merited first in the nation caucuses and primaries, and yet they wore the presidential winnowing first searches for far too long. Before the rest of the 50 states could register their favorites.
It's a new world, a new age of anxiety today. Let's hear it for all 50 states holding primaries separately but at the same time in an election year! Too late to do anything about the 2020 elections now. How can we accomplish your dream primaries, Charles? Democratic and Republican election politics stink today. What's the do-able answer? How can we bitterly divided Americans get it done?
To blame the Iowa caucuses for the nominations of Walter Mondale. Mike Dukakis, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton is about as silly as it gets. It amounts to pure scapegoating and Mr. Blow should know better.
I also tire of the assertion that Iowa is too white to be representative of the Democratic Party. The state has a historical tradition in extending equality to minorities when the country has allowed discrimination to continue to exist. It was Iowa, for example, that ordered schools could not be segregated nearly 100 years before Brown v. Board and was the third state in the union to declare gays and lesbians had a right to marry.
Finally, the insistence that Iowa's rural character is too much for the rest of the urban Democratic Party to stomach needs only one response. Where did Trump beat the Democrats to gain the White House? In rural America.
I have no problem with removing the caucuses, but make sure it is understood that it's not the state that's the problem. It's been the Democratic Party's ineptitude.
1
I have been saying this for years. No more caucuses. I like your idea but again it makes the other states say why bother to vote. A better idea is the country votes on the same weekend. Sat and Sun. Or like one reader said a National Holiday. The candidates will spend less money. Camping out in Iowa for a year? Seriously?? Election day should be a National Holiday and on the weekend.
The amount of money spent is immoral.
7
There is little chance we would worry about the 2020 election and the future of the Supreme Court if the electoral college did not exist and if voting rights and access were extended and fair. Trump & Repubs will probably lose the popular vote by millions and may still gain the presidency and control of the senate.
Why waste the Iowa debacle? Use it to show how future elections can be done right.
Dems should have simultaneous primary ELECTIONS in several states. Those states should be different every four years (Just as Supreme Court Justices' tenure should be limited terms.) A condition precedent for participating states would be to declare a holiday for voting and allow a period of several days for voting. Registration to vote should be same dy and made simple.
The elections should use Ranked voting.
4
After 35 years in the restaurant business in both Ames and Des Moines, I learned that when there are large swings in the weather--as there was from Sunday until the Monday caucus--Iowans do not go out. If that were a Friday and a Saturday evening--two of our busier days, the numbers would have gone from 200 on Friday night to 50-75 on Saturday.
If it had been cold on Sunday and thawed to 50 degrees on Monday (the opposite of what happened), we should have expected near record crowds.
1
Imagine a nominating contest with all states going to the polls on one day, preferably on a warm Spring weekend. Then taking a month if needed to count the paper ballots cast and report the results. Imagine the candidates being selected by popular vote with no party interference.
6
The entire nominating process is archaic. Enough of this drip-drip-drip sequence of Iowa then New Hampshire, then South Carolina. We are down to five legitimate contenders and we should know where they stand after these largely repetitive debates. Let's have one national voting day and pick one of them.
4
I do not understand the insistence of anonymity in voting; especially when one claims to live in a democracy. Nor do I accept the argument to not vote for the same reason.
Vote but disqualify your ballot if you must. If you do not have the courage to state openly whom you support, especially in a party caucus or primary, then do you truly live in a democracy?
@Steve
I guess you're not aware of the cancel culture that makes people targets of trolls and reprisals for not toeing the party line.
Remember the CEO who was hounded from his job for donating to a conservative cause?
1
I like the idea of having four different kinds of states in the first primary. I also kind of like the idea of starting out with less populous states, which gives a little edge to the candidates without big money to start. But why even the same four states every time? Mix it up. Why not, oh, Montana, Kansas, Georgia, and Maine? Four years later, why not New Mexico, Arkansas, Indiana, and Vermont? And, sometimes, a big state could go it alone. These things could be assigned by lottery. And the lottery would make for a fantastic national event. (Bring out the chip dip.) Otherwise, the same policies that benefit the same small states will become even more entrenched.
7
All primary contests should be primary elections, not state caucuses, which are highly undemocratic because they favor those who are able to be present on only one night and location. Caucuses were introduced to reduce the power of party leaders, and it has in my view, been a disaster because they tend to nominate those who then cannot win a general election. If the state does not want to hold a primary election, then they should not be able to participate in the nominating process. Having several states hold their primaries on the same day so that multiple states can be included in the first voting is a great idea, but I think it should also shift across years, so that no state has outsized influence.
4
Is this a good time to remind people that the State of Delaware is diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, urban\rural\suburban mix? And, its a blue state into the mix.
This year, they have a dog in the fight, but that is anomalous. A statewide campaign can be had for $250,000, so there is not barrier to entry. Door knocking is essential to winning.
Politics is retail, but the media reach extends to DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Jersey. The only broadcast station is a PBS affiliate better known for being the Philadelphia affiliate. (WHYY).
I don't know why they wouldn't take the process of evaluating multiple candidates any less seriously than the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire.
There is a long tradition of comity between the parties (a bit strained of late).
1
@Point of Order
As a native blue hen, I was thinking the same thing! The whole state can be traversed easily in a day...and Delaware was the FIRST state!
1
Not a good idea to have a big regional primary as first. Just enables Big Money to pick the candidate (or at least neuter calls for real change). Although the caucus system has outlived its value, having a small state primary go first is a good thing since it permits a lesser known, lesser funded candidate at least have an opportunity to compete against big money funded special interests big foot the field.
1
Here's another suggestion: Stop holding these things on weekdays, when normal people have a thousand other things pulling at them --- jobs to get home from and go to the next day, families to feed, kids to attend to.
Of all the things I can think of that smother participation in the electoral process, whether the primaries or the general election, it is the absolutely non-sensical insistence on holding elections on a weekday. It should be a federal law that ALL election processes, whether local, state or nations, whether caucuses, primaries, special elections, general elections, whatever you've got, ALL must be held on weekends, both days, Saturday and Sunday.
10
This is a PERFECT suggestion. Individually, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina falls short on number of grounds, but collectively, you’d be hard pressed to find a mix of states that represent myriads of demographics and issues in the country. Having four states go at the same time would allow candidates much more flexibility to strategize and find their support. This would also allow to be generous with Iowa for the snafu this year.
5
You're right in that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the population as a whole. I would like to point out that they are representative of the electoral college so not sure I'd dismiss their demographics as irrelevant.
I'd go one step further. Have EVERY contest on the same day in every state, instead of dragging it out. People can campaign in the six months leading up to the election--it's enough time. Then we can done with the endless media political pundits, the horse race, etc. Whoever has the most votes wins. No super delegates, no nothing. All primaries, no caucuses. Simple.
8
@cjp the problem with that plan is that it takes an incredible amount of money to run a national campaign. By having the primary on one day, you'd basically be limiting your choices to only big name well funded establishment candidates.
1
@Glen Manna I've thought about that. But we have the same problem now. It takes tons of money to travel from state to state over what appears to me a year long campaign. I think the only way my idea would work (and not saying it would) is if we limit the amount of time anyone could campaign. I still think it favors wealthy candidates, but so does our current system. Kamala Harris dropped out in large part because of money--and she raised millions. If that's not enough to win, not sure how to fix it (other than the idea to really have public financing of elections and dollar limits on total contributions each candidate could receive individually).
No more American raucous primary caucus anywhere.
No beginning with very tiny states that don't reflect the very populous weight of American gender, color aka race, ethnic, national origin and sectarian diversity.
Start with primaries on very representative Super Tuesday in the biggest states California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
Then thereafter move on to the less populous states in groups of five.
Thereby dramatically shortening the primary season while getting a better real time picture of the American national popular political will without a focus on the Electoral College.
9
I agree that we need to shift the process, however having a single state focus at first can more easily allow a concentrated effort by relatively unknown candidates versus the challenge of a national landscape. My recommendation would be to move one state east to Illinois. This state has significant urban, suburban, rural, manufacturing and agriculture aspects that are far more representative of the nation at large than Iowa or NH. Regionally it is from the north, however it’s southern regions abut the confederacy.
1
Hey, how about this? (Assuming there even are elections in 2024)....
A series of 5 Super Tuesdays (10 state primaries each) at 1-month intervals, with a November lottery (1 year before the general elections) to decide which states would be in the Feb primaries, which in March etc.
In addition, the 50 states would be divided into 5 groups of
10 based on their population percentiles: biggest, big, medium, small and smallest. The first 2 states from each group drawn in the lottery would do a Feb. primary, the second 2 would do it in March, etc.
Also, let's just get rid of caucuses, move to universal voter registration and a national standard for secure voting procedures, limit campaign spending and have calmer debates with more actual examination of the candidates' proposals and experience, but fewer gotcha moments and overly rehearsed sound bites.
Oh, and let's just ditch the backward and undemocratic Electoral College while we're at it.
This new way to choose presidential candidates would get everyone involved early by giving all states a gambler's chance to go first, and it would guarantee a mix of large and small, rural and urban, diverse and less diverse. It might also make the whole affair less pressured and rancorous.
Also by having the lottery only 3 or 4 months before the first batch of primaries, we could limit campaigning to the year just before the election.
This way our leaders might be able to dedicate more quality time to solving the world's problems.
8
I disagree with Mr. Blow often enough, and gong him in these comment threads often enough, that honor demands I post this too: He's right.
Personally I'd prefer to go further and move the early spotlight away from Iowa and New Hampshire, because even in the shared arrangement Mr. Blow suggests, they remain non-representative states.
If you want a northeast entrant, how about Delaware? It's much more diverse than New Hampshire, and small enough that upstart campaigns could still afford media and make a dent with retail campaigning.
You won't find quite that much diversity in the midwest -- but you can find more than Iowa has by looking almost anywhere else. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, and Illinois all edge it out.
The "Iowa problem" in presidential politics isn't new. What's new is that this fiasco finally offers a chance to end it. Let's not let that chance slip away through half-measures. They'll still have a nice bicycle race and the Field of Dreams.
3
Making a primary election simple and impermeable to fraud is critical. Apps not working, incorrect counting, phone lines jammed for hours are not hallmarks of a working democracy. The way it works in Iowa is not how it works in the majority of other states. The DNC cannot dictate to Iowa. So why is Iowa allowed to mess up the rest of the states’ ability to function in a normal fashion? Ignore Iowa and it’s primary? Put our grownup pants on and fix this or else go the way of other republics which is down the drain. Can any of candidates help to fix the mess or make it more complicated? DNC, you need to fix this soon.
1
I've lived in Indiana for ten years now and have yet to hear anything about when a primary is held, and the republicans like to keep it that way.
I still don't know when our election is being held and the only way to find out is to have to hunt for it. I will, but most people living hand to mouth, not so much.
Nobody, nobody has come to our state that I know of and the only appeal to me is by Elizabeth Warren, asking for money of course. Asking for money only is not working well and makes me feel both selfish and annoyed at the same time.
There are democratic leaning people here who were not before. But we will be even further pushed away from being involved than even Ohio. The impotence is making the state sicker and sicker, losing ground and hope to what the gop is cooking up.
As always, Mr. Blow has great ideas, insights, and suggestions. This is a truly outstanding suggestion. Is there someplace I can vote for this?
3
In addition to the four states Blow has suggested, they need to include a state with a large inner city, and a rural farm area. None of those states he mentioned include a large city like LA, Chicago, New York.
1
The horrendous waste of money and time spent by incumbents, candidates and voters on campaigns has got to be reigned in before we all go nuts. There's no time left for the elected to responsibly govern with the never ending campaigning and fundraising. Why isn't mail-in balloting for all level elections and primaries possible and smarter?
“Pacesetter Primaries “. Absolutely Brilliant, Sir. You have succinctly and fairly outlined the History and severity of the
Iowa preference. And that preference has finally crashed and burned. Long overdue, in my opinion. Sure, it was more representative 50 years ago. But, this is NOT your Grandparents Democratic Party. We grow, we evolve, or we Die.
Thank you.
2
Here is my suggestion. The DNC should stop working overtime to stop BERNIE! The story of this app is a story of a DNC ready to do anything to derail the candidacy of someone of whom the corporations are afraid. They did this in 2016 and gave us Trump! There is no excuse for IOWA. It was planned chaos.
1
Isn't it a little weird that the USA, among the most technologically advanced nations, employs such non-representational, technically incompetent, methods to choose its leader?
And the bizarre nature of the Electoral College is little better.
Small wonder they got Trump!
2
Iowa needs to ditch the caucus and adopt the primary, like most of the rest of us. Ranked-choice voting should be a part of its primary, along with no-excuses absentee balloting.
2
No way btw would this have made a difference to the campaign of Harris. She would have come no better than fourth in any of these states - the reason she focused on Iowa is b/c she completely failed to dent Biden’s lead in SC. Let’s not fool ourselves - while as I said I think this is a good idea, I will give anointed successors (Biden) or repeat candidates who did well last time (Sanders) a leg up.
Hold the primaries (four states or more) on a Saturday. Hold them during the daytime.
A brilliant and fair idea for a first four primary launch.
1
Pragmatic and reasonable.
So our governments in states won’t do this. Mostly in the south. Especially crooked Florida.
Regional voting might be more easily monitored. Systems must be the same in each state. Low tech. Paper and pencil . Fed directly to the Secretary of States offices for tabulations and scrutiny. Observers should be assigned to all voting places from all parties involved .
We have 3rd world voting issues now. We are a trump / Putin Banana republic ,Charles. We have redoubt groups marching in DC this past weekend. Our laundry list is growing. Keep us sane .
3
A seemingly fine and reasonable suggestion. My only hopes are that Mr. Blow’s proposal is indeed given consideration and that caucuses will go the way of lamplighters. It’s a new day. And tomorrow will bring another. And so the future begins.
1
Oh please.
Perez blamed the disaster on the "local" Iowa DNC, not the national DNC. So....really? The national DNC was having NOTHING to do with the first political Dem bellweather of the primary season when the hatred for Trump is over the top?
That's what's wrong with Democrats, they never want to own up to their own failures and always look for someone else to blame. If there's something positive, like Trumps' success on the economy, it's "Thanks Obama!". When the stock market declined, Trump was to blame.
It's looking like a socialist is going to head the Dem ticket. If he doesn't get kneecapped first. Then he'll pick Stacey Abrams for VP, the lady who won't concede she lost governorship of Georgia.
Good luck with that.
Trump 2020.
solution to Iowa fiasco - dont let luddites run the show but let professionals handle it through development of a proper app, dress rehearsal of all the processes and systems, conduct a detailed testing of the app including user testing, have a tested contingency plan comprising of disaster recovery and business continuity plans,
these are all standard practice in the private sector and is not rocket science, don't let city slickers and country bumpkins run a structured business process and system solution by themselves and let.professionals do it for them
sigh, what total incompetence, in the private sector, heads will roll and in this case, they should
1
There are soooooo many ways we could perfect our democracy by improving our elections, that to speak in isolation of only one or two concerns is to continue the dysfunction. Publicly funded, ranked choice elections, on paper ballots, with national standards that protect everyone's right to vote and contain gerrymandering would be a good start. We should also limit campaigns to just a few months before the election like the UK does. Where to begin? With a comprehensive package of reforms!
The weakest part of this proposal is the notion that your chosen 4 states are somehow representative of regional identity and interests. New Hampshire representative of the "Northeast," such as Boston, New York City, Philadelphia,etc? Nevada representative of the "West," such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle? I completely agree that the emphasis on Iowa is completely unjustified and harmful. It's just one among many things that make our electoral process a circus.
The solution to the DNC and IDC's problem is a fundamental reorganization of laws and regulations as they pertain to the very nature of political parties.
As it stands, political parties are corporate entities that, as recently as last year, were found by the courts to be entitled to cheat, if cheating is what they desire.
IDC has certified an caucus whose worksheets are riddled with math errors and their lawyer says "“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process,”"
"The phrase 'two plus two equals five' ('2 + 2 = 5') is a slogan used ... most notably the 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. In the novel, it is used as an example of an obviously false dogma that one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans promoted by The Party in the novel."
This is Orwellian and we are talking about the "good" party.
We need to elect Bernie Sanders so he can, as president and head of the Democratic party, finally shape it into a democratic institution, rather than the oligarchic tool it has increasingly become, indistinguishable from what the Republican party is now.
This is a dangerous moment in time - one that may well benefit the most dangerous man on the planet.
Shame!
3
I would really like to see rank-order voting -- it gives you a much better sense of real voter sentiment.
1
@Rachel Kreier You realize that the person who has lots more second place votes can displace the person who got the most first place votes by a small margin in the first count. Ask Bruce Poliquin in Maine how he lost his House seat in 2018. You can find the results here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-maine-elections.html
Similarly, now and then a college basketball or football team with fewer first place votes from writers or coaches gets ranked higher overall in a poll than one with more because they use ranked voting. Would that be accepted by all candidates and their supporters in a presidential race? That's kind of what Sanders' supporters are challenging in the Iowa caucus. Why should Mayor Pete have more SDE's than Sanders when Sanders got more popular votes? Because lots more people switched to Pete in the second round than did to Sanders. Does this seem simple to understand when people are losing faith in political institutions? Will it seem fair to everyone? How long would it take to verify using a paper trail? (I think it took three days for one congressional district in the 2018 ME-2 House race, about as long as it took in the Iowa caucuses.)
I will say it one more time---Tom Perez could lose this election singlehandedly. We need someone who is bright, but at the same time, ruthless---yes..Rahm Emanuel fits the bill.
1
All primaries on the same day.
Rank voting for #s 1, 2, and 3.
DONE!
Forget party-based primaries, outdated caucuses and the Electoral College. Shorter elections with campaigning limited to three months. Transparent finance reform with a universal cap for all candidates. Term limits for Congress and federal judgeships. Mandatory voting for all citizens without any need for registration by state or party. Early voting, online or in-person with a weekend deadline so voters don't have to take time off work. Keep it simple, count votes and let the majority rule.
2
The Iowa caucus has historically been irrelevant, serving merely as the starting point. However, the media preoccupation with it as harbinger has been accentuated in this immediate gratification culture that is coupled with following the leader rather than choosing the leader to follow. These mindsets are systemic to the new Democrat lockstep guidelines for achieving political power as the pendulum lurches left. Get in line or get out reduces the individual and instills fear where independent intelligent analysis should exist.
The voting fiasco that resulted in Iowa mirrors the Democrat Party confusion and disintegration that results when it becomes merely oppositional and directionless, not knowing where to turn as it has surrendered control of the mind to conform to fear-based political correctness.
3
The proposal may be well and good for Democrats, but there may be at least two bumps in the road.
First, doesn't each state set its primary date by a legislative act, not by political party schedulers? Each state picks up the tab for its presidential primary, which is why primary dates are picked to coincide with state and local primaries.
Second, can Democrats unilaterally set a primary date without the concurrence of Republicans and other political parties?
1
The caucus problems in Iowa are a gift from the heavens - now, not only can we without guilt tell them they're not going to be first anymore...but once they're no longer first, we can finally end the insanity of pandering to the corn ethanol lobby. Ending the wasteful and shockingly inefficient boondoggle of making ethanol from corn will be a big step forward for everyone in America - except, perhaps, for a few farmers in Iowa. Cue Spock intoning "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
1
Imagine a world where we didn't have caucuses. Where we didn't have primaries. Where we didn't have an electoral college.
And instead had a fair election with ranked choice voting, and where voters could rank the candidates of their choice from all parties.
4
That's an interesting idea. Iowa tends to nominate political outliers.
1
I completely agree. Caucases are not democratic at all. Why do we still have this non democratic, ancient tradition that is held is a non-representative state beats me. What we need is anonymous, traditional voting that happens in primaries.
5
Agree. I never paid attention to what a caucus is, until this cycle. It is completely un democratic, in that it excludes most people. You have to be at a certain place, at a certain time, for an uncertain period of time.
For myself, I want to go to my state’s primary when it is convenient for me, push a button, not talk to anyone about my candidate, and be done with it.
My comment does not even address the fact that Iowa (and New Hampshire), in no way, represents the diverse demographics of many other states.
1
@ecamp "You have to be at a certain place, at a certain time, for an uncertain period of time."
Like, going to the movies, your kids sports events or getting your serviced?
That is a weak meme.
@Mike It certainly is not a meme, but it indicates that you have an inability to put yourself in someone else’s place. What about a single parent that has no one to watch the kids or cannot stay for the amount of time, how about the person who works at night, how about the elderly that do not drive at night? I would counter that caucuses are elitist. Think about the situation of others.
It is a complete mystery to me that anyone considers a political system as fractured and unfair as this one an enduring framework for a continental democracy. Belief in its creation by a projected God is not going to hold it together.
It’s the press and the candidates that put so much emphasis on a single state. Someone has to go first hopefully it isn’t a state hacked by the other party or the Russians but the results in Iowa shouldn’t and doesn’t determine how the rest of the nation will do. Also with a lot of candidates a brokered convention isn’t the end of the world and could end up giving the Democrats a stronger candidate to defeat Trump. Sure, the Democrats need to make some changes but it’s too late for this election. I would urge every Democrat in the Nation to get out and vote in the Primaries for who they best believe can defeat Trump. If that candidate happens to be your favorite great, but the math isn’t with you.
@James
No, someone doesn't have to go first. Why not have the entire country vote at once? Better yet, with ranked choice voting, so a candidate with broad national appeal who might be everyone's second choice can win. If we have to have someone first, why not 5 states, rotating?
@SAO: Only celebrities with widespread name recognition will get votes.
@SAO I'm with you 1000%. Why should the primaries be any different than the general election? Give all candidates 60 days to make their case in each state, then have a national primary (a "run-off" election) to select the finalists, then another 60 days for those candidates to make the rounds, leading up to "the" election in November. Simple, understandable and ultimately fair.
Now, for icing on this cake, the elections should be declared a National Holiday so that everyone can take the day off and vote.
Even more important in the primaries is getting rid of a one vote system where getting 25% of the votes makes one a winner.
We need a modified ranked choice voting system, where, say, the first choice gets four points, the second choice three points, etc., and delegates are then awarded based on total points.
We need broadly acceptable candidates, not a candidate who can excite one narrow segment of the voters.
5
@Jim S.: Parliamentary systems offer a wider selection of political parties to vote for.
This makes so much sense! Which is why it will never happen.
6
As an interesting alternative to Mr. Blow's quadrant of representative state's primacy primary, what about opening the bidding with a nod to the under-represented, the effectively disenfranchised, the (at least under this current disaster of an administration) forgotten?
Imagine that the first round of primary voting comprise the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. Perhaps the issues of climate change, and the Federal Government's ability to respond to disasters would be where they need to be, front and center. Additionally, the electorate in those locales better represents core Democratic Party constituencies than does Iowa, or New Hampshire.
2
Great idea, Mr. Blow - but I'd like to go one better.
Who enjoys our 18-24 month election cycle? How many of us love it when campaign ads flood the airways and Internet pages? Why do Americans tolerate this nonsense? A billion dollars in advertising for a presidential run? That is insane!
Why do we need to space the primaries out at all? When we do, it's clear that the earlier ones heavily influence the later ones. 4 or 5 months of primaries is as bad an idea as the caucus format.
So here's my proposal: first, limit the presidential election cycle to 3 - 5 months. One month of campaigning prior to the primaries, all primaries on the same day, and then a month from the primaries to the national convention. Once both parties have chosen a candidate, let them campaign and debate for no more than a month or two before the election.
That gives voters plenty of time to inform themselves (those who care to, that is) and choose their candidates. Then maybe when the election is finished, the winners can actually buckle down to the business of governing, instead of immediately commencing their campaign for the next election.
American politics has turned into a giant circus, and those who benefit from the carnival atmosphere are not about to change it. We the people need to work toward these changes, and if we choose not to, we'll be forced to deal with the consequences.
19
@TLMischler
Well done, Mischler. The present system from the electoral college to endless campaigns is not serving us well at all.
1
Grest idea.
But IA and NH for decades have ignored arguments of fairness and pleas of national parties in their seeking parochial economic advantages and attention being first and second.
it's time to play hardball. The national party should refuse to allow candidates to be in debates if they campaign in IA or NH if either state ignores the party's implemention of Blow's proposal.
And the party convention should refuse to seat delegates from such states if they unfairly beat the starter's gun.
3
I won't make a case for Iowa to remain first in the nation; I think it's time to move on from that. However, there are a couple of facts that run contrary to Mr. Blow's argument.
First, in the past twelve years lily-white Iowa has advanced the presidential hopes of a black man, a woman, a Jew, and a gay man. Second, as for Senators Harris and Booker, those candidates did not only poll poorly in Iowa. They polled poorly nationally.
4
The US should look to how political parties are privatized under the German Constitution. Privatized poltical are funded by member dues and select candidates by means they decide for themselves.
Everyone hopes to use the weaknesses of the system to gain advantage and everybody lose. Is this called individualism?
@Roland Berger
Why don't you recommend the parliamentary electorial system that Canada has. It's one of the few things that you have that are better than in the US.
A national primary day makes the most sense. If that can't happen, then a battleground state primary should be considered. Make the first primary states Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump only one those by a slim margin. The Democratic candidate should be the one who can beat Trump and what will be increasingly Trump-like (and Trump Lite) Republicans in the states that matter. Throw in Nevada and a southern state Democrats could actually possibly win like North Carolina. No Democrat is winning South Carolina--no matter what the turnout of black voters is.
3
A national primary is the obvious solution. It's usually rejected because it presumes that a lesser-known candidate is punished by needing to campaign nationwide with very limited financial resources. So... if we have to do a phased selection with some states going before the others, let's do it in an egalitarian manner.
18 months prior to the national elections, hold a lottery to determine which states go first during the primary/caucus season.
This eliminates the practice of would-be candidates visiting the first states for years beforehand.
1
Real political parties are private organizations that govern themselves.
Perhaps it is indeed because Iowa is simply not representative of the Democratic Party is a good reason that it should have more importance. The arrogance of the urban coastal population is leading the Electoral College in a direction which assures defeat for Democratic candidates. And to infer that the opinion of Iowa voters should not be heeded because they are "over 90 percent white" is as racist as saying we should ignore the opinion of minorities because they do not represent the majority of voters.
5
I do agree with Mr. Blow, but I would like to go one step further. He mentions putting too much power into a few unrepresentative voters. I would say that that clearly defines our Electoral College system, where a few small states can over ride the popular vote of the country. We really should go to one person one vote.
13
"Second, Iowa is simply not representative of the Democratic Party in a way that should have so much importance. The Democratic Party is becoming more urban and coastal. Iowa is a relatively rural Midwestern state. The party is also becoming increasingly diverse. Iowa is over 90 percent white."
Perhaps true, BUT, unless I missed the amendment to the Constitution, the 2020 Presidential Election will still be decided in the Electoral College.
The Democrats need to choose a candidate that will have some appeal in the West, Midwest and Southern states. HRC won the popular vote, so what, she lost the election. Defeating Trump is more important than anything else.
Two thousand more votes in Brooklyn won't compare to two votes in Boise.
4
I favor a deadlocked convention that becomes an existential crisis. The Democrats are not a real political party.
1
@Steve Bolger She hears you. She will not desert you. She will be there for you.
I never agree with anything Charles says. That's because he is always wrong.
Today, I agree with him all the way. The four states are small enough not to require a lot of ad money, as they can be traveled well. The candidates can play to their strengths in different states. But, be careful what you wish for.
This election cycle, there were 26 Democrats, at one time or another. Last cycle, there were 16 Republicans. If there were four states on the same day, there could be four first place winners and some respectable runners up. This could prolong the election season, inviting outside forces to drive one candidate to the top.
1
The fiasco in Iowa screams Natonal Primary Day and Paper Ballots.
In addition the rules change by the DNC for the next debate allowing Bloomberg to participate is just plain wrong.
Once the rules were in place during the first debates it is shameful that midway through the process the DNC decides to change them. If the changes were in place from the beginning, Booker, Harris, Gabbard and others would still be in the race.
The DNC and the GOP are not above selling their elections to the highest bidder.
Perez and his cohorts at the DNC should be replaced before any other damage is inflicted on the DNC.
7
The resolution of this problem is impossible for one reason: Democrats and Republicans, for practical reasons, hold their separate primaries in the same state on the same day (not so important this year with an incumbent President, but very important in 2008 and 2016 for example). Could we even imagine the DNC and the RNC being able to agree on such fundamental changes to our electoral system?
1
@Eric Schultz
Why do the parties have to agree? It would be nice, and cheaper for the states, but let the Republicans do what they want, when they want, and the Democrats also.
Besides, Iowa and New Hampshire are far more representative of Republican Party national demographics so the party would be much less inclined to change the status quo.
3
This is the end of caucuses. Iowa and New Hampshire are not un-representative. Compare the Presidential election results in each state to the national result over a series of elections -- both states are a pretty good (not perfect) sample.
There are more problems with the US Primary system than the Democrats have candidates. Too few people ending too many campaigns, lack of true representation of the US population, worn out corn fed candidates criss crossing the country in jets contrary to their support for climate change, too much money spent on a lot of people who will not vote the way candidates need them to, etc. .
Solution: Four primaries between January and June based on time zones, allowing more or less 6 weeks in each time zone for campaigning. More bang for the buck, more people having a say, and equity is restored unless you live in Alaska or Hawaii. The allure of CA & NY turn into anchors for insuring the primaries have enough participation, while giving candidates the chance to actually visit Oregon or New Jersey. FYI: Portland is not the capital of Oregon-a state defined as rural.
The primaries begin on one coast and roll to the other side, alternating direction each presidential election year.
Now, that is solved, can we discuss the big elephant in the room: CAMPAIGN FINANCING?
7
Campaign finance reform must happen also but it won’t because that would allow democracy to exist less impeded by big businesses.
4
The recommendations of Charles M. Blow for forcing Iowa and New Hampshire to share their out-sized importance in the selection of presidential nominees are logical and fair. The fact that both states are atypical in comparison to the rest of America in their small numbers of citizens of color is enough to deny them any prominence in the selection process.
7
Many states and state parties simply do not have
national party interests in mind when establishing their delegate selection rules. Many state legislatures are controlled by one party, have no interest in
cooperating with both parties, and may even have an incentive to cause trouble for one of the parties.
The national parties themselves can and should move in a way that is both comprehensive and reasonably adaptable.
The Constitution is silent on the matter, although campaign finance laws have been found constitutional even in the absence of express authorization in the Constitution. Amend the Constitution to create a system of regional primaries, get the corruption out of the primaries.
3
States can withhold approval from moving the date. But they can’t affect the allocation of delegates. The DNC decides how many delegates each state controls. That’s why I suggest doubling the delegates awarded in four swing states, defined as those closest contests in the last presidential voting.
1
It's been hinted at by a few other here, but I'll be explicit; none of the reforms suggested--Charles' first four" idea, ranked choice primaries, regional primary blocks, one nationwide primary--make any sense unless the elephant in the room reform happens first (which will make the others possible): full public funding of elections, including primaries, with no organizational contributions (be they union , corporate, religious, PAC or five-oh-whatever) allowed and a very small three digit limit on individual contributions per contest.
If we can't get to this point, only rich candidates will be able to compete in shortened primary season or in regional/nationwide primaries, and there will be no more "little engines that could". Public funding however, would enable those candidates to be competitive.
Not to mention that when they do get elected, said candidates might actually be able to represent their constituents rather than the oligarchic election funders they are all beholden to now.
8
@Glenn Ribotsky
You might aadd to that list get rid of Citizens United.
1
As a Republican resident of Western North Carolina (the mountains) I too place my hopes in Bloomberg. I'd like to encourage other Republicans of conscience to do likewise. First though, I'll vote for Bill Weld of Massachusetts, who is still on the 3 March North Carolina ballot.
As a veteran, LTC Vindman's removal has me seeing red. I've chastised both my senators for their silence; Democrats please raise your voices at this injustice.
14
This solution (or something similar) has been obvious for many years.
The main hurdle is that people with power overwhelmingly like to keep it, even at the expense of the public good. As we've recently found out, this is one of the most difficult challenges of our time.
4
The IA/NH/NV/SC "pacesetter" primary is a good idea. There are other possibilities, but obviously something needs to be done. And as others have already said here, get rid of the caucus format in Iowa and Nevada while you're at it.
While we're at it, get rid of the caucus wherever it is still used. I suppose it used to just seem "quaint" but now it's simply undemocratic. I assume that one reason Iowa originally held on to the caucus was so that they could continue to be first (because it's not a primary).
5
This plan might be an improvement on the current system, but if the Democrats want to win they should put the swing states first. Candidates forced to hone their appeals to voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin would be well prepared to take on the Extreme Far Right (our Republicans are more right wing than Italy's League or Poland's Law and Justice) in the general.
6
Or better, give the swing states additional delegates. Unlike moving dates, it does not require permission from state legislatures.
Just for a thought, let’s say the four closest states in the previous presidential election are given twice as many delegates as they would otherwise get. Instead of eliminating those who can’t catch fire in IA or NH, it will eliminate those who can’t catch fire in OH, WI, or MI. Which is sensible given the electoral college.
4
@Green Tea May I second your remark regarding the extreme nature of many of American's Republicans in comparison to the extreme right fascist parties in Europe. I am a Californian living in France, and the event that we fear most is Marine Le Pen's Front National winning the Presidential election in 2 years' time. But it is clear that Trump and his supporters are even more to the right of Le Pen on many (a majority?) issues.
Just one of a dozen problems with democracy, or what purports to be democracy, in America. The concept of one man one vote has been shredded to the point of non-existence.
17
I never have gotten to choose a candidate in the primaries. By the time it gets to New Jersey, the race is all but done. The only option I would consider fair would include NJ.
3
I would add to Mr. Blow's prescription.
Use ranked-choice voting (sometimes called "instant runoffs") in primary ballots, like they do in the state of Maine. It gets rid of complex tactical voting and lets voters express their instructions clearly.
Use nonpartisan primaries like they do in California. The top vote-getters go on to the general election.
The point is to break the stranglehold on politics held by the two political parties by using better - harder to game - ways of measuring voters' instructions to our government.
Breaking the stranglehold of the party duopoly will also reduce the cost of campaigns and the influence of money.
20
I agree. Ranked-choice voting could be an elegant substitute, even though it would miss the point of the social engagement benefit.
4
@Oliver Jones
Great ideas. But this stranglehold of the parties you want to break is not a fluke of history or an unintended consequence, it is there by design to prevent the rabble from imposing their will over that of the party bosses.
They both love the system, except, temporarily, when it plays against one or the other.
2
@Oliver Jones - I totally agree. Go with ranked choice.
Sadly all this is just a hope with not a prayer to come about. We remain wedded to the bizarre notion of states rights. it is one thing for those state that were independent entities before they became states, but Iowa and most other states were US land before they were made states.
So voting remains a state prerogative and a conservative court will defend this to the death.
3
@Terry McKenna correctly calls out "the bizarre notion of states rights."
We should also point out that our system of voting was based on the underlying premise that the male head-of-household spoke for the entire family unit, wife, children and slaves included.
The Constitution gives us agency to correct this, but as long as the structure continues to reward Republicans electorally for acting against the clear wishes of the majority it seems depressingly unlikely.
2
I’m aggravated that after the corrupted results of the 2016 election and three years of lying, cheating Trump, it just dawned on the Democratic party that maybe they might need to make changes in 2024. What planet have you been living on? The money spent and time wasted in Iowa for inaccurate results is a travesty. Good candidates were pushed out and candidates camped out for a year in a state that will not matter in the Electoral College at the end of the day. The long drawn out process of multiple primaries stretching out over months with the candidates fighting among themselves is counter productive. Following the same old processes while we are fighting dark forces seems like bringing a knife to a gun fight. We need a candidate with vast resources and a laser beam focus on removing Trump who will upend the conventional norm. In my opinion, that is Mike Bloomberg. Support him in the primaries and let him lead us into the future.
8
@Kim Rockit notes "We need a candidate with vast resources and a laser beam focus on removing Trump who will upend the conventional norm."
Those of us who write comments to the NYT are no doubt more involved in politics than the vast majority of voters. I believe many of them would find it difficult to distinguish between two old white male billionaire New Yorkers who have been both Republican and Democrat in their past.
Democrats must excite a huge electorate to overcome the inherent advantage Republicans have in the Electoral College. Bloomberg could equally effectively use his vast resources and laser beam focus to remove Trump by supporting another candidate with a better chance to win.
1
@Kim Rockit A semi-Billionaire against a multi Billionaire: sounds very democratic to me(¿…¿). If we want to take this argument to its logical extreme, why not run Bill Gates against Jeff Bezos?
And while you're at it, institute Ranked Choice Voting. RCV is the best way to ensure the candidate with the most delegates will also garner the most votes for the party in November.
9
The Caucuses are a total puzzle to most of us here. It's about as incomprehensible to us as the game of Cricket is to U.S. citizens.
I recall a U.S. student here saying that he was registered as a Republican (but disliked Trump). I couldn't figure out why someone has to be registered as a Republican or Democrat or whatever; but apparently it's connected with these caucuses.
If it's so complicated it causes problems like the Iowa Caucus fiasco, than it needs simplifying. That's obvious.
4
As a campaign worker where candidates are on the ground and accessible and voters are engaged and take role of picking candidates seriously, I think a national primary would actually disadvantage candidates who are not well funded or unconventional. To get around, all you need is a car. The very good local press, which still exists here, gives free coverage of the earliest events. These are “house parties” where candidates go to a home of a supporter, who invites friends or announces the event in the paper or town list serve. Many consider it a duty to meet every single candidate. While NH is not racially diverse, it is economically and is decidedly purple. In my county we have highly educated voters connected with Dartmouth as well as voters who are barely getting by. If a candidate is good, news will travel, e.g. Obama or Clinton and momentum will build. We talk to each other. Buttigieg is the prime example. No one had ever heard of him but he gave his pitch and it worked.
The personal exposure means candidates really have to hear from voters and I can assure you, here in NH we ask tough questions. A national system favors candidates with big bucks up front. As a test, we will see how it goes for Bloomberg. Here where campaign fare is Dunkin Donuts or supermarket cheese trays and candidates drive their own cars, family car, his lavish food spreads would not have get him far if he couldn’t convince real people, who he’d actually have to talk to.
4 primary dates, one for each of the time zones in the Continental US. Let Mountain Time go first. AK and HI can vote with Pacific Time.
While we're at it, let's limit campaign season to 3 months like most of the rest of the world.
6
I would take the fifty states, randomly divide them into 4 groups that would primary vote together on different dates during an election year, say one group per month. To be fair, rotate the groups/dates so that no one state or group votes first all the time. The candidates know where to put their efforts and when, and no state gets to claim it's "first".
3
So the extremes are 1 state going first (and having out-sized influence) and having a national primary day; both have significant negatives.
It should be possible to determine an acceptable process between these extremes. For example, someone has suggested regional primaries 2 weeks apart. For the sake of the Party, Democratic leaders should do their job and jettison the current anachronistic circus.
2
The caucus system should be eliminated. What ever happened to the idea of a secret ballot which is the basis of most voting except in the legislative bodies themselves. Iowa and New Hampshire can't help the fact they are not representative (few small states are), but who is it which gives them so much importance? The media, especially television, which earns millions through the payments for ads. What would happen if the media gave the campaigns in these early states coverage which represented the one percent of the population they are? It might be refreshing for voters in those states to be relatively free of the daily political commercials that bombard them in the days before the vote.
4
Spot on about Iowa insofar as Blow critiques its first in the nation status and the outdated caucus process (a relic best relegated to the dustbin), but the press needs to stop complaining about this year’s Iowa “flaws.” Yes, it was cumbersome and, yes, there were reporting problems, but the system worked and it especially demonstrated the need and the effectiveness of a paper back-up to any automated or computerized casting or counting of votes. So, yes, get rid of caucuses, hold a single-day national primary, and while we’re at it, shorten the primary campaign season to six weeks and institute ranked-choice voting. But don’t do all that because “Iowa didn’t work.” It did. It just didn’t work fast enough for the press to play the “kingmaker” role they have tried to arrogate to themselves, and I (for one) think that’s fine.
2
All well and good. However, South Carolina holds an open primary in which all registered voters can participate. Which means that in a year such as 2020 in which the Republican party is not holding a primary those registered voters can and will participate, most likely voting for the Democrat perceived as the weakest challenge to Trump. To me, that is perhaps even more dysfunctional than the Iowa debacle.
11
A word in defense of caucuses: Caucuses are problematic. I agree. However, they aren't all bad. We're essentially talking about open ballot, rank choice voting in real time. Many of the problems stem from the real time aspect but how else are you supposed to do rank choice on an open ballot? I think we can agree rank choice has many positive benefits.
Open ballot by contrast is both good and bad. More Republicans would have voted to convict Trump on a closed ballot. Privacy is worth something. At the same time, fewer people would vote for Trump on an open ballot. I'm sorry. My 86 year old grandmother is not walking into church with the priest knowing she supported Trump. Social pressure isn't always a bad thing.
How about we have a six week primary season? Everyone votes on the same day. The candidates get six weeks to state their case. Do the voters know a whole lot more about where any of the candidates stand now than they did six months ago? Far less aggravation, far less money, and we can all get on with our lives. Six weeks, a primary. If no one gets a majority, a run off six weeks later, then six weeks and the general election. I believe a lot of other countries do it that way. Maybe if the voters weren't beaten to a pulp the way things are done now, more people would vote. Then again, if more people voted, Republicans would have to find a way to suppress that. You know, the way a democracy is supposed to work.
3
Grouping the four on a single day has merit. But, continuing with a seriously flawed caucus system makes no sense. Legacy should not dictate the future, The caucus system is not a fair way to select delegates, a private individual vote is. Why not a primary vote for all voters, not just the voters who are physically and financially able to spend a day at a caucus. We need 21st century solutions to today's challenges.
6
Even if the primaries were held on the same day, fifteen percent would still place Harris on the shortlist for campaign suspension. Warren hit 15 percent in Iowa and she needs an upset before Super Tuesday to stay in the race. By all means, hold the caucuses/primaries on the same day. However, I think you overstate the significance of the Iowa caucuses.
The only major change is Buttigieg's boost. An event which isn't that surprising considering Buttigieg staked his campaign on performing well in Iowa. It worked for him, not for Harris or even Warren. Remember the farm bill? The only really surprising thing about Iowa was Biden doing so much worse than anyone expected. Everything else is water under the bridge. Bloomberg is the spoiler that Democrats should worry about.
Regardless of early state outcomes, Bloomberg is going to fundamentally distort the primary. Why? Because he's rich enough to do so. That should scare you more than Iowa.
3
@Andy
What is scary is how many are willingly selling the party.
While Blue isn't the same as Red, they sure do share many traits.
2
@Dobbys sock But the big difference is that there are no Republican candidates (Presidential, Senatorial or Congressional) even remotely similar to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Virtually half of the party.
1
If Democratic Party is really savvy they will hold their first primaries in states that are ‘swing states’ such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Why ? Because no matter who Iowans or South Carolinians select early and give momentum to, that person will NOT garner the Electoral College votes in November in the General Election. It is far more crucial to have the Democratic candidate who is popular and can turn the key states that slipped four years ago as mentioned above.
5
If Iowa still went first in the future yet everyone read this article and thought things through then as if it were an element in a Periodic Table, the ‘atomic weight’ and properties of Iowa would be clear. In other words, nobody would pay attention to an inert, low weight result. New Hampshire not so different in size, whiteness and median age. Bloomberg gets this. Let’s see how it plays out. Just as silly is all the weight Biden and his backers are trying to make about the blackness of South Carolina which is also a small state and not entirely democratic blue. Trying to talk down Mayor Pete before they get there and see the results.
1
I kind of like this idea, although, being new to me, it is one I want to mull over a bit more. An initial thought: a 4-state opener could easily result in 4 winners. This might shut out other candidates before 46 states got their turn. Might be a good thing, maybe not. How about if there was one winner: newcomer Buttigieg surprises everyone by finishing first in all four states. Is he now the presumptive nominee before 46 states vote? Maybe a good thing. Probably not.
It’s something to think about and discuss. Thanks, Charles, for kicking off the conversation.
1
Anything less than a series of national primaries is undemocratic. Why should voters in some states be left with fewer candidates to choose from by the time their state has a primary?
3
Excellent article. Run it again a few times, especially about the final outcomes vs the immediate results of the caucuses. If you were buying stocks based on Iowa's track record for picking winners, you probably wouldn't.
1
So is the point that Iowa has undue influence? Or not? Mr. Blow's message seems contradictory.
While Iowa is often being criticized now for being "unrepresentative" and "too white", its Democratic voters delivered the state for Barack Obama in 2008, then an underdog running against a much better known, better funded, and establishment-favored candidate. And it nearly did the same for Bernie Sanders, the Democrats' most progressive candidate (unmentioned by Mr. Blow) in 2016.
Agree with ditching Iowa (and Nevada et. al. caucuses), but think we should think larger and ditch party primaries entirely!
Stretching the federal election out 2+ years only invites overspending, media overexposure, party/special interest meddling and distraction... thus subpar and corruptible results.
Instead, we should choose the general election ballot with ranked-choice voting based on finite, 100% public "script" funding to obtain the state verified voter signature quotas.
Yes, ballots would likely be longer, but if a voter can search for their candidate by name then... you know. Plus, we can cast our ballot electronically then present the paper copy to the poll validators to enable "drive-by" voting if desired.
Voters would be able to create/update their registration when they vote on a federal election holiday. And eventually, it can likely all be done (more) securely online at home.
This isn't rocket science folks.
2
There should be a contest that resolves itself over a three month period. Two primary days each month. I would draw straws to determine which states go first after the election cycle ends in the 2020. States would have three years to set the process in motion.
There is no reason why Nevada, South Carolina, New Hampshire or Iowa should have a preferred place in the order. Put each state on an equal footing.
4
It's a start but I'd go further. Six to eight geographically regional primaries (no caucuses) that are held every 2 weeks from February to June with regions rotating their order every four years. Reduce the running around that candidates have to do...and consequently some of the need for all that money. Give each region a role in influencing (early or late) who the nominee will be. Allow candidates to focus substantive time and attention on the issues of a region. Seems pretty straight forward.
4
"Iowa is simply not representative of the Democratic Party."
On the contrary. Iowa is representative of the total corruption of the American electoral process--no different, really, from Pennsylvania or New York or Florida. It tells you something when a tiny amount of transparency is introduced by the Reform Unity Commission, and the effect is of roaches scurrying when the lights come up.
2
@WOID
And NY and California and a few other states are not representative of Republicans OR the will of the entire country. If so the entire country would be overpriced with homelessness rampant everywhere. When liberals can run a city that doesn't put all its poor on to the street I will believe in your liberal strongholds. You can afford to live in Republican states and that is why people stay there. California and NY and NJ are losing people every day like the NJ lady who bought next to me and is retiring. She was tired of paying for Liberal social engineering mistakes in NJ..
@Bill Virginia You seem to be in denial about something--care to share?
Charles M. Blow shows that the Democratic Party is not democratic. Yet his proposed solution is insufficient to equalize political power, implement one-person/one vote or address the wrongs of government.
The group of early voters whether in one state or four would have a disproportionate influence over the outcome even if one vote doesn't effect the outcome. It does not give any votes for undocumented immigrants, no matter how long they have been here, nor some people the government deems "felons." Furthermore, the Democratic Party has undemocratic super-delegates.
This type of selection of rulers has resulted in evil -- for instance, Barack Obama, often considered a "normal" president, caused hardship or misery for many undocumented immigrants. He also perpetuated what are euphemistically called "endless wars", killing innocent people. Their legal system never held him responsible for such policies, generating new injustice.
Blow usually takes a clear moral view, especially about Republicans' many evils; shouldn't he also do the same for Democrats?
4
I am grateful Mr. Blow has the courage to reveal the truth about the DNC bias and reason for its existence, and it’s not to elect the president the American people want to vote for. Deciding who won before the Primaries were announced is an example. Finding a way to give Pete an extra delegate is a great example too. Pete claims he’s not wealthy, yet, but have we checked his “Panama Paper”? Just like the same ole corrupt politicians who brought us to our knees, he sure doesn’t mind taking their money. Where you get your money from matters. Bernie’s money proves beyond a doubt, you don’t need billionaires to run, if you deserve the trust of the American people, not the oligarchy.
Let’s get rid of the caucuses.
The process for choosing a president is far too long and exhausting. Maybe that is one of the reasons why many voters don’t participate. Let’s have all primaries on 1 day and reduce the time for the general election.
BTW I’ve noticed that the media isn’t paying much attention to what happened with the app’s backup. In case of problems a hotline was set-up for the locals to report the results to Des Moines.
The message board 4chan got the hotline number and made it public. It then encouraged Trump supporters from all over the country to jam up the Democrats’ hotline. This made the debacle worse as it slowed down getting the local results to the party’s headquarters.
In addition I am thinking that foreigners might have helped to clog the hotline. It doesn’t matter if the” mischief-makers” were American or foreigners, the FBI needs to investigate.
There must be a law that prohibits this type of interference in the election process. The FBI won’t be able to arrest foreigners but it needs to prosecute the Americans. If they aren’t held accountable they will continue to create chaos throughout the year. If this happens the stable genius won’t need much help from the Russians or other foreigners to win!
8
Why does Iowa have to be first at all? Tradition? I thought the Democratic Party was about progress. And the caucuses have to go. They disenfranchise too many voters.
8
Imagine a world where the candidate who gets the most the most votes actually wins. This radical idea could apply to Caucuses, Primaries and General Elections.
16
@William Dufort That wouldn't be OK with the DNC if the candidate's name is Bernie Sanders.
1
@Edward
Right. And that's one of the reasons the DNC establishment is so afraid of him and will again do everything they can to stop him.
The solution this article proposes would be a great improvement over the current system. And, because it is a small change, it would be easy to implement.
Other proposals in the comments here, such as ranked voting, also have merit. But, they would be much harder to implement. Democrats could use the system proposed in this article in 2024, and then work on more far-reaching changes for future campaign cycles.
While you bring up election reforms, Charles, what is your reaction to the Feb 1st NYT editorial on 10th Anniversary of Citizens United?
"More Money, More Problems for Democracy.
Countering private campaign funding with public campaign funding is the most viable way to limit the political influence of the wealthy."
Yes, reform the primaries to better represent America, but the bigger blockage to democracy is big money dominating politics, legalized by the Supreme Court, amplifying the influence of corporations and the wealthy on our lawmaking, muffling average citizen influence, since they can't compete.
This is what shapes our political norms, and influences the platforms of the candidates and parties. Any opinion on solutions?
Also, most voters and many politicians are against the electoral college. Our media hardly ever mentions this huge swell of public opinion. Why does the media avoid the whole topic?
Instead of dealing with the real blockages to democracy, the 24/7 TV media sits around for days with well paid, wordy pundits creating suspense about the Iowa caucus results.
Never discussing the pros/cons of proposed solutions to the problems that plague us. Most media only repeats campaign generalities to amplify drama and conflict, without objective explainations of issues that affect our lives.
4
As someone who grew up in NJ and currently resides in PA, and as a Democratic voter who has criticized the Iowa/ NH first in the nation arrangement for many years, I object vehemently to NH representing the Northeast. Seriously? New England maybe, but not the greater Northeast - and I do mean greater.
Something needs to be worked out that is more representative, with an earlier inclusion of diversity, but making an unrepresentative State representative of the Northeast is just repeating the same problem.
If you want diversity, representation and real power, we could do worse than PA - ethnically and politically diverse; urban, suburban, and rural; industrial with strong academic institutions and technology sector.
PA, the Keystone State, also stretches from East Cisst to Midwest. It’s not the whole solution, but it’s a good start; not to mention it’s historical significance in the founding of our nation.
7
@Don
Let's change the entire election to a foot race and then the fastest will win!
It is about Ideas and Candidates. Democrat ideas are just recycled socialism and your candidates would bore a person to death. Just look at the crowds that follow Trump. Zero ideas and excitement and the worst performance running the house with the over emotional lady...your future is bleak!
Maybe you are not aware of this out in Pittsburgh, or maybe you are exaggerating, but PA doesn’t have any coastline.
This would definitely be an improvement.
But why is nobody in the Times pointing out what we’ve learned from the new transparency in Iowa’s process:
The Iowa Democratic Party is running its own mini version of the Electoral College, complete with denial of victory to the popular vote winner by weighing rural white votes heavier than urban non-white votes.
That, not slow vote tabulation, is the outrage of the Iowa caucuses.
And it wouldn’t take a constitutional amendment to fix this. The national party could fix it tomorrow.
Why is the Times, and even this columnist, giving the DNC a free pass on an internal electoral college that disenfranchises young and minority voters?
24
Am I missing something? Selecting the presidential nominee in such a rolling state-by-state process is absurd, isn't it? Why should any states have greater say than the others -- other than due to population?
I don't pretend to have the answer, but here's an off-the-top-of-my-head try: in March have a national primary with ranked voting. Then have the top, say, 5 candidates get together AND WORK TOGETHER with party leaders to choose a candidate. If they can't agree, then decide among the 5 at the convention like they used to. I would love to see a real convention again.
I trust the quality of the people in this party: look at the quality of the House impeachment managers.
12
@CJN I really like this suggestion -- because primaries are a poor way to incorporate concerns about winning the general election into the process.
1
Really? Schiff made long winded presentations and said the same thing over and over. And Nadler was a Johnny one note - impeach, impeach, impeach. What does he do for an encore?
At least the Republicans offered arguments that were so ridiculous that they provided a good laugh.
I am a US citizen living abroad. I simply love this idea. It is simple and elegant.
1
@K
Elegant is important, yes. Like listening to children complain about their parents rules!
The real solution is ranked choice voting by all states on the same day. Have any state go first is not fair to the other states. The campaigns can and should do their best in all the states they choose up to a defined day and then ranked choice makes the best choice reasonably available to voters. In essence, a caucus but available to all voters and far more accurate than a single elimination vote.
All the debates should be done before that vote, obviously. But the debates should be done differently. Another topic but it's integral to this issue. Multiple debates in multiple smaller groups. Better questions and followup questions that get to the heart of an issue rather than the surface soundbite from each candidate. Let the BBC ask the questions and follow ups. Then we'd see what the candidates are made of.
6
I get it --Iowa is too white and too small to be accorded all this attention every four years as the presidential season heats up.
This is getting old. Iowa is now history with no conclusive winner. It's time to move on and focus on New Hampshire, another small white state.
2
@sharon5101
Democrats could learn 1 great lesson from Trump and that is how to win. You folks have been losing on Everything for 4 years now. Aren't you getting tired of that. Your socialism is as old and tired as Bernie, its biggest fan. Get ready for more misery as your Hatred for Trump, derangement syndrome, has you fully in its hold and you will continue to flail about until you lose in November. Does Anyone find an audience without a message except for hatred?
Good ideas Charles, but we should go farther and eliminate caucuses and require primary voting as a way to assure more participation. Second, your list is good, but I would expand it to six states and include Pennsylvania or Michigan and Oregon or Washington.
Since the extraordinarily and too long primary process has the candidates stepping up to the plate almost two years before the general election, the initial six primaries could be held in mid[February of the general election year and no one could complain they were deprived of the opportunity to see their candidate. And while I am at it, why in the world should the citizens of Iowa get to personally meet the candidates but everyone else has to wactch TV ads?
13
One country. One vote on one day. The current system
Is preposterous and the waste of energy and money is enormous.
44
@Doc I'm not sure a single primary day would work. Suppose a "dark horse candidate" -- someone who was thought to have little support beforehand -- wins, and then turns out to have some serious flaws?
The idea of having several days, each with a representative sample of states, would be less risky me. It gives voters time to evaluate the candidates and adjust their positions as the campaign proceeds.
1
Imagine a world where there are no caucuses.
Imagine there are primaries with ranked voting.
Starting primaries in small states does lend itself to forcing candidates to hone their skills at retail politics but there's zero advantage to those contests being caucuses, which are anti-democratic in that they make participation much more difficult for those who are disabled, working two jobs, or serving as a caregiver for a child, spouse or parent.
15
Beginning in 1964, with one exception (Jimmy Carter, 1976), South Carolina has chosen for the Republican candidate for president, almost always by whopping margins. Trump won SC by 300k votes and will win SC again by a huge majority.
Over the same time frame, Iowa has chosen the Democrat in seven of 14 election, including six of the last eight. That makes Iowa more relevant to the Democratic nomination than SC.
Nothing, of course, excuses the precinct caucus system. It's not an acceptable substitute for a primary election. But focusing on the differences in the two states' racial makeup misses the more important issue: Iowa's selfish insistence on being first so that it can (1) receive a lot of money and attention, (2) have an undue influence on the nomination process, and (3) revel in its self-importance.
2
the money thing, the voter suppression thing, the electoral college thing....so much to choose from, this all means the US is a dying democracy, federally, while large, heterogeneous states like CA can get something closer.
9
@Rickibobbi
I heard none of these complaints when Obama had a "miracle" in Iowa. Then Trump won and what a terrible state. Obama won states from the Republicans and Trump won some back. It is called an election and you win with good ideas and good candidates. The democrats currently have zero of either. Get ready to lose big as you ignore 80% of the country!
The DNC may not be able to get rid of unrepresentative caucuses, despite strongly encouraging states to switch to primaries. They can't make states pay to hold a primary election, and apparently, seven state legislatures still refuse to switch to primaries.
However, the DNC can change the order of caucuses and primaries, so that no caucuses can happen until after June 1st, when the winner is almost always clear. That way, caucuses will be much less influential in the process.
7
@Susan
This is not a tenable solution for caucus states. In fact, the precinct-level caucus is the first step in a multi-step process. If the Iowa caucus and convention process are run similarly to how they used to be run in Washington or Minnesota, the precinct caucuses actually elect delegates to their county or State Senate District Conventions, not National Convention delegates - or even to the State Convention, despite the "State Delegate Equivalents" terminology. These county and Senate District Conventions then elect delegates to their Congressional District and State conventions. It is at those conventions that delegates to the National Convention are elected. Thus, there needs to be adequate time between each of these levels to elect, then organize, the following convention. If we assume a reasonable time of one month, that would mean four months from the precinct caucus to the Democratic National Convention - and similarly for the Republican conventions.
Caucuses should be less influential, however - and part of this is for the news media to realize (and report accordingly) that precinct caucuses are only the first step in a multi-level process, and these votes are only indirectly related to how many delegates Iowa will actually elect to the National Convention.
This differs from primaries, where the popular vote translates directly to the number of delegates elected to the Democratic National Convention (with a 15% minimum to receive any delegates).
1
I would prefer a National Primary in September with all mail in votes published the exact same time. Send out ballots three weeks ahead and use ranked choice to determine the winner. Voter would choose their top three choices. Too much time and money spent on campaigns. Hard to get rid of PACs and wealthy donors. I’d prefer a publicly funded election; it would be challenging to create a fair framework that everyone could agree on. Maybe a Fair Primary Amendment to the Constitution with representatives from all Parties would write and get petitions in each State to qualify before all States vote on it.
14
Right problem, wrong solution.
Why continue giving Iowa, NH, SC, or Nevada ANY priority in the nomination process? All are less representative of the Democratic demographic than larger and critical swing states in their respective regions -- say, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, NC, and Colorado.
It is an absurd waste to have candidates spending a year in Iowa and almost none in the states that will determine the presidency in 2020. If a smarter, more representative strategy had been in place in 2016, perhaps Hillary would have at least stepped foot in WI.
Time for the DNC to take back control of the nominating process.
If the local parties in Iowa and NH continue to do end-arounds to try and stay first, those results simply should not be counted.
16
The early primaries have the "power as a campaign killer or king maker" because donors, influence groups, and party officials have their red lines.
Without initial contests, there is no opportunity to kill or to crown. There is no way to act upon your red line.
Mr Blow makes a good case for a more democratized process. But, The People WILL HAVE TO DEMAND a greater, more diverse swath.. because, by their nature, establishments retain power.
3
Starting with these four states seems to make sense. Doing away with the caucus system in favor of straight voting does too.
Paper ballots, though unwieldy, or machine with paper backup that is counted. No machine-only voting. So easily hacked by the Russians, the opposition, a middle schooler looking for excitement.
The advantage I see of small states going first is that relatively unknown and under funded candidates get heard if they are willing to work hard. For instance, Andrew Yang, who brought fresh ideas.
Those small states don't have to be the current ones, but this is an important advantage for the infusion of fresh ideas from people outside the political mainstream or even what is becoming the far-left establishment. These have two different groups of insiders.
This gives the rest of us a chance to see the new candidates in action as we make up our minds about them. Often the newcomers will play an important role, if not as president, than in other capacities. We always need the chance to evaluate new ideas in a world that is changing fast.
Part of the problem with the parties in the smaller states is that they are poorly funded. That was the problem with the app, I think. No way to hire expensive consultants that those on the coasts have come to expect. I'd like to see this acknowledged, not just that they are incompetent and disorganized.
1
Here's my solution. Do away with primaries. Forget a single nominee. Every candidate should appear on the ballot; it should be ranked voting. No fuss, no muss, no internecine party-controlled back room games. Let the candidates run, let the people vote, and let ranked voting sort out the winner.
9
@dave
I agree completely. Mail in ballot sent out three weeks before and voter choose top three candidates of their choice. All results published on the same day. Publicly funded; but that could be a problem because so much money is involved now.
3
I think this is reasonable proposal. There is no perfect balance between giving every voter a roughly even say (a single national primary), avoiding that the candidate with most pre-existing name recognition and cash for TV ad buys is unbeatable (as would be ensured by a national primary or anything coming close), and encouraging actual personal contact with voters is taken as a serious consideration (difficult if, say, California was one of the first states to vote, or too many states voted simultaneously). The one drawback is that all four of these early states are quite rural and none contain a major city. ( Vegas doesn’t count - it’s like a smaller version of Phoenix, all suburb.)
WA State has all mail in voting. Three weeks to vote, mail in (no postage required) or drop off your ballot.
Primary or general election runs exactly the same way. Much higher voter turnout.
Might be a solution to the IOWA problems this year.
8
Oregon too. The old system — paper and ink—works brilliantly. If you choose you can even get confirmation by email once your ballot has been received. No lines. No wasted time off work. The only way we won’t kiss our electoral system goodbye is to demand this system for all elections. Loudly.
3
@TreeHugger
Great read. The IT geniuses have never delivered a "safe" system that is connected to the web. The country demands, and the media, an answer by 9:00pm election night. I would think paper ballots would eliminate all the fear of a rigged election but would make us wait a little longer for results. Great trade off and much harder to cheat!
@Renee Kaplan I did not know this about your state. It addresses all the most serious issues, especially the absolute need for paper ballots, and it seems to encourage turnout. What objections can be raised against such a system?
I agree that there should be a limited number of primaries established on a straight voting platform as with our election processes. Establish a standard procedure that every primary state follows. Better yet, get rid of the primaries and have the individual parties select their candidate as in the days of yore, pre 1968. Trump would never have been up for election with that tried and proven system. The primaries are time wasters and a huge money sink.
2
Sure, why not? It would also be a charitable way of moving Iowa off center stage and pushing it into the background where it belongs.
2
New York and California already have a disproportionate impact on the political influence through media, entertainment and finance.
Let Iowa have its caucus, NY and CA can set the agenda the other 364 days a year. And to belittle Iowa is at the heart of the blind spot those on the coast miss.
3
@Jack There is much to be said about the heartland. The Great Lakes States, for instance, have an abundance of important resources and those need protection. Food and water are in the heartland. Letting the party ignore those states, the so-called rust belt, was part of the equation in electing Trump.
3
After decades of participating in caucuses and the problems the other night, I believe that a three tier preferential primary would accomplish the same statement of choice that a caucus allows. It would boost participation from Iowa's 16% to something closer to New Hampshire's 52%.
4
1 primary day for the country on the Tuesday after Memorial Day, and extend the national holiday so everyone gets a 4 day weekend. And, while we are at it, make the General Election in November a national holiday too. And no more caucuses ever again.
176
Thank you, Charles. I resonate with your proposal as it will better reflect the increasing diversity not only of the Democratic party but of the nation. In my view, ideally the entire nation would have their primaries on the same day. This would better reflect what happens in the general election and would force a more nationwide focus, not only for the candidates but the news media.
The hype over Iowa and New Hampshire is quite annoying and, more importantly, destructive for potential strong national candidates who get written off as doomed based on poor showings in these two tiny, unrepresentative states.
6
I really like this idea of holding all 4 early primaries on the same day. I would even prefer a national primary, followed by a runoff to finalize the nomination. But the whole caucus business is an idea whose time should be long past.
And of course, National funding of all federal campaigns.
5
As I reluctantly pull myself away from a delightful few hours of entertainment from our own LaLa Land here in CA, my first point of business - while stepping back into reality - is reading Charles Blow. And I can not agree with him more. These caucuses are ridiculous, and an anachronism. It ranks right up there with the electoral college which brought us the worst president in modern history if not our nation's entire one. So, first on the list is to begin eliminating caucuses throughout. With that let there be only primaries; and as Charles states, let them start out in states which are not only larger but also more diverse. Iowans are great people, and this is not about them personally. It is just that it is a pretty Republican state, and our Democratic candidates there are like the proverbial fish out of water. Charles comment about Kamala Harris's "if only" she could have started out in Nevada, our neighbor to the east or South Carolina. I still am saddened by my senator's need to drop out from the race. As a final thought, too, somehow, someway, and someday, the electoral college must go. It just plain messes up our democratic, small "d", voting rights.
9
Agreed 100% with the article. I have always believed the Caucus system is not Democratic and should be done away with.
Also having Iowa as the first state and New Hampshire as the second state gives an unfair advantage to white males candidates who are not necessarily the best choice to become President.
7
Another benefit to your proposed multi state initial voting day is that it would leave less room for the candidates to attack one another. It is so discouraging to have protracted periods of time in which they can train their sights on other Democrats, increase schisms within the party, and offer attack lines for Republicans to use.
28
I think many are in agreement that the current "Iowa first" policy has outlived its usefulness (was it ever useful, other than to Iowans?) . . . and that caucuses, in general, are a bad leftover from the horse & buggy days.
My idea would be to have 4 primary days spread out over one month. But divide them up by alternating time zones a week apart from each other. In 2024, say, start in Eastern Standard, then hop over to Mountain the following week. Then the Pacific zone goes next week, finishing it off with the Central zone on the final week. In 2028, the order would be Pacific, Central, Eastern and Mountain.
Yes, you'd always lead with a block delegate-heavy states on either coast but, from election cycle to election cycle, no single block of states would always be first. Others have proposed a single primary day and that could work as well. But the current system we have now - spread over 6 month and in a completely arbitrary order than never seems to change - is completely untenable.
3
Let the state with the highest percentage of voter turnout in the last presidential election go first.
51
@Lauren
Interesting idea. It would encourage and reward voting. You could do it with caucuses, primaries or mail-in ballots. Would high turnout states come to monopolize the early voting slots? Would it fix either of the Iowa problems, namely, (a) unrepresentative early voting states knock out candidates that should not be knocked out (deprives later voters of the chance to vote for their candidates) and (b) caucuses are inherently undemocratic?
2
@Robert I love the idea of a merit based rotation. My concern is the unintended consequence of amplifying the apathy in States that are already marginalized.
How about adopting the European model of making voting mandatory. That will wake people up.
7
@Don How about, instead of (potentially) engineering a new way to punish poor people make election days public national holidays and require *all* employers to enable their employees to have their say in the election?
7
Fairness is all that matters. Every state has different issues, and each one deserves attention once in a while. I think it's possible that Iowa is so spoiled at this point that they barely even showed up last week.
Rotate the primaries. Agree that 4 should go first, but a different 4 each cycle. If you are first this time, next time you are last.
And if Iowans are so darned polite, why don't they insist someone else go first next time.
4
"First, caucuses are undemocratic anyway, because anyone who can’t afford to or is unable to spend hours on one specific day in a gym or hall — the elder, the infirm, the poor, the struggling — is frozen out of the process. And those who can participate are divested of anonymity, so peer pressure and shaming can play an inappropriate role." Absolutely agree. Caucuses should be terminated and replaced with primaries.
12
@CKS
State legislatures have to vote for that. Caucuses are run and paid for by state parties. Primaries are state elections, paid for by the state. The DNC strongly encouraged states to switch to primaries after problems with caucuses in 2016. Legislatures in seven states did pass bills switching to primaries. However, seven other states did not pass such bills, and are still using caucuses (including Iowa and Nevada).
1
Those who have suggested a national primary are correct, and of course it needs ranked choice or some other runoff mechanism. The purpose of the current primary schedule is to provide money for the media and the parties. It doesn't really help the voters--they can and should research candidates on their own without relying on ads, pundits, or parties. Anything but a national primary is inherently unfair to people who live in other states, especially larger ones.
So far as I can tell, the main argument against a national primary is that we aren't competent enough to do it right. That's possible, but not very satisfying. We can do better.
3
@Mark We need a longer time to have a look at the candidates and also to let new faces in, not just insiders that we already know. We have insider centrists and insider far leftists. Months and months is too long, but a single primary is too short. It lends itself to sound bites. The argument isn't that we aren't competent but that it's an important decision that takes time.
Campaigns evolve as we get to know the candidates and their positions better. While it should be a process, it needn't be so exhausting. Three months seems about right to me.
I like the idea of switching states around fairly. Maybe one state per region, as Charles suggests. There is a bit of infrastructure to going early. And financing it. So that would need to be worked out.
Paper ballots counted by machine is probably the safest. Spot checks to make sure all went well, hand counting if it doesn't.
2
White rural voters are designed by the electoral college to have outside influence. This is why Iowa will get to keep it's unfair privilege. Fix the electoral college to be a real democracy, and Iowa ( and the GOP) will cease to matter.
4
@Nobody
The nomination process to determine who is the (Democratic or other) Party nominee for President has nothing to do with the electoral college. The electoral college is solely for electing President per results of the general election.
@Larry
Larry, don't be spreading false truth to the readers of the NYT. They blame everything for Trump entering their lives and won't be happy until he is gone. Blame Iowa for the Electoral College? The NYTimes and Charles Blow readers are convinced!
Personally, I don't think Iowa is such a great thing, but on the other hand it could be a tested ground of software and organization. We would not want to have such chaos on the day when ALL states have primary. Now we know what to watch for. There is some rationale to start primaries in the smaller states.
2
And each reason of this article exactly elucidates, without any hope of compromise, why none of it well every occur.
See you in 2024, Iowa. We do seem to love you.
Too late for this cycle, but as a tactical matter, why don't the Democrats run their first few primaries in the larger key swing states -- which, to at least some degree, would also be diverse states? If you are trying to find out which democrat is likely to win an election that hinges on results from a half dozen states, why not start by trying to identify a candidate who at least commands the broadest support among democrats in those states?
19
The caucuses are not a secret ballot, which is the most basic breach of our American
democratic political system. All the energy, time, money, media attention, on virtually all white Iowa and New Hampshire is inescapably archaic racist, because candidates who are favored by people of color are enormously disadvantaged in Iowa and New Hampshire. This dates back to the pre civil rights era.lf South Carolina were the first primary, where the Democratic electorate in predominately of color and favored Biden, Biden would be in a much better position. That is a huge racial bias in the system. Votes of people color a clearly being discounted.The huge number of Democrats in Super Tuesday States, including California, are effectively disenfranchised by the Iowa and New Hampshire system.
12
Until we get rid of caucuses, which we should have 4 years ago, at least broadcast the number of votes that candidates are getting in the caucuses rather than just percentages. Caucuses are as bad as the Electoral College. Four years ago Bernie was able to look like he was a real contender for the nomination, even though he received nearly four million actual Democratic votes less than Hillary did. But he was able to organize huge bus loads full of supporters to dominate the caucuses and receive delegates that in my opinion were really illegitimate based on the small numbers of actual votes that he received in the caucases. The caucuses represent voter suppression.
4
This idea is worthy of the DNC's consideration and I hope they are looking at options such as this. Requiring these "pacesetter primary" states to hold elections rather than caucuses would improve the process as well.
I suggest that states holding primary elections so early in the selection process should use some kind of rank choice voting. When there are 6-10 candidates running, voters may have more than one that they like, or would settle for. While the goal of primaries is to narrow down the field, rank choice voting could make the process more gradual, allowing voters in other states to have their say.
5
@Mary Rossano The main good thing about the caucuses is that they approximate ranked choice voting. Much better would be to have something like ranked choice voting by secret ballot.
One reason not to early vote absentee in my state is that you run the risk of voting for someone who is essentially or actually out of the running because of earlier primaries, when there may be a close second choice.
There's no perfect system, but we should improve on what we have.
3
As an outsider, who admittedly struggles with the concept of primaries, this is weird.
So you're saying that if a white guy wins say Iowa and a black girl wins South Carolina that would have some more meaning, despite the fact neither may win the nomination.
If Harris was polling at 12% in Iowa then fell to 3% within a few weeks that suggests other factors were at play, rather than the demographics of Iowa. Biden BTW was pretty strong and then collapsed. And he's a white guy.
Although the article as a whole suggests the writer believes that race is a dominant, if not the dominant, feature of the nomination and election process.
Actually I don't even know why you bother with primaries, especially as you say they haven't worked that well in decades to pick the eventual President.
Why don't the parties just nominate someone and if independents want to join the race fine.
6
@Paul This is how our parties “just nominate someone”. This was specifically designed not to be a parliamentary system where the executive is drawn from the legislature. I think there are advantages to a parliamentary system, especially avoiding gridlock when a different party controls the legislature and the presidency, but from what I have seen of that process elsewhere, I would not want unelected party members choosing the party leader.
2
Of course Iowa shouldn't wield this much influence in political primaries, and caucusing is outdated and exclusive, but why are we talking about this now, after the fact? The DNC has had 3 years to address these issues, but like so many other instances they've proven themselves inept. After the debacle of the Clinton campaign, and now this shoddy effort in Iowa, I have to wonder if the DNC is populated entirely by covert republican operatives. Tom Perez must go. Can't Dems find any competent progressive people to support the party's agenda? No, because the DNC is still staffed by 'Third Way' DINO's, who think they can have it both ways, supporting Corporate Donor's agenda while fulfilling their duty to the working class, the poor, the environment, and minorities. Just go with one person gets one vote on a secret ballot, with a paper record. It ain't rocket science.
4
Should party nominees be selected through a democratic process? And if so, in what sense? Democratic as in let anyone participate and vote? Or just within the party membership? In the end, it's up to the parties themselves; these are not national elections -- they're intra-party selections. Anyone who is not a member has no "right" to participate unless the party grants it. And the party can set any rules it wants.
3
The only fair solution to the primary/caucus problem is one election, nation-wide, on a single date. There could be early voting, of course. And I also believe that second and third choices should be recorded.
12
Yes, good idea. But maybe we should actually stop worrying about how we choose a president and get rid of the presidency altogether. Anyone with me to convert to a parliamentary system? Having lived for a decade in Canada now, I much prefer parliamentary systems to presidential systems, all of which seem eventually to devolve into dictatorships.
21
@617to416
Yes, a great idea.
But can you imagine the problems of putting through the constitutional amendments necessary to enact such a fundamental change?
It would probably be easier to simply annex ourselves to Canada and accept their entire system of government. We might even end up with Harry and Megan as our king and queen. But would the Canadians accept us? We'd be like an elephant jumping into a backyard wading pool.
Amending the Democratic presidential nomination process is a bit simpler. We'd only need to get it past the Democratic National Committee.
6
@617to416 Yes, it would be preferable, though not perfect. I'd have moved to Canada long ago, but never had enough points. ;)
3
@James Miller
Periodically you see maps circulating on the internet that join some of the northern and western blue states to Canada and leave the southern and most of the central states in some usually disparagingly named red country. As a liberal American from New England, I can see the appeal, but as a Canadian I say no, no, no!
Canada has its own unique culture—not radically different from US culture, but different nonetheless. The most significant difference is that Americans—even liberal ones from the north and west—tend to put the individual ahead of the community. Here in Canada, community is at least equal to the individual. I'd fear that brining even the most progressive American states into Canada would ruin Canada.
A far better solution would be to split the US into two (or more countries). The blue states could write a new, more progressive Constitution. The red states could live in their Fox News utopia. Everyone would be happy.
The blue states of America would also make a fine ally for Canada and, like the Arctic Ocean, serve as a useful barrier between Canada and Putin's Russia.
3
Throw away caucuses altogether - rip the bandaid and get it over with. Primaries only.
And mix it up more. Don’t let the same states always go first.
38
Let's be real about this: Iowa would be a lot less of a big deal if the media wasn't so hungry to have a horse-race narrative to run with, and candidates didn't have to scramble for bragging rights or see donors abandon them for the leaders.
Even with the reforms suggested here, the moment primary results under any system become available, that's when the death watch will begin for those who don't immediately make the top tier.
Those who drop out early might be the ones who could have the stamina to go the distance if the process wasn't designed to cut down those who didn't show immediate strength. Let's not forget voters in the states whose primaries come later either - they have less and less impact on the final outcome the farther along their primaries occur.
Whatever other criticisms there may be about the current primary process and Iowa in particular, the biggest indictment is that the system was unable to prevent Donald Trump from proceeding to the nomination despite all of the manifest ways everyone knew he was unfit for office. Could we somehow add a skills-test round? A sanity check?
And what about ranked-choice voting?
One more challenge not addressed here is one that may be even more critical: how to create a primary system that can't be gamed via targeted disinformation through social media and other means.
9
@Larry Roth "how to create a primary system that can't be gamed via targeted disinformation through social media and other means." I fear that is a bigger problem than we know, and growing by the day.
3
"Imagine a world in which the Democrats’ first contests gave them a fuller, more nuanced portrait of whom the full Democratic base supports....As it stands, the process puts too much power into the hands of an unrepresentative few voters..." Imagine a US without the Electoral College, a nation of one person one vote. This would change everything, allowing for diverse votes to really count instead of erasing them. The National Popular Vote Bill is over 70% of the way to accomplishing that goal. If only more state legislatures would sign on.
1
This proposal sounds too much like common sense to happen. Maybe Perez can threaten the status of all four states with an offer they cannot refuse. Either a national or rotating primary, or they agree to this proposal. Also, all four should be primaries. Nevada notoriously had issues last cycle where unionized casino and culinary workers were not able to get their shifts off to caucus. Not to mention working families more broadly in both caucus states. Lastly, ranked choice voting will help make the field cooperative and allow room for more diverse campaigns.
1
It's an intriguing proposal but I don't know that it is useful to have the candidates efforts so diluted. Most people want a winnowing of the field. Blow's proposal would seem to make that harder. It may also biased towards the establishment candidates since they are more likely to have the money to compete on multiple races at once. I'd want to hear what experienced operatives think the effect would be.
I either don't get or don't buy Blow's point about Harris. Her problem wasn't Iowa. She wasn't polling well anywhere in the Fall, including in South Carolina.
4
@David Excellent point about it favoring the establishment candidates. One of the advantages of the current system of a small state (not necessarily Iowa) going first, then another, is that we get to hear both establishment and non-establishment voices. If we rotated it among small states going first and second on a trial basis, we would get the winnowing.
Joe Biden's candidacy was already weakened by the focus on events elsewhere and the bogus investigation by Trumpists. He's also not a great campaigner because he runs an old style campaign and too many people seem to want newness (I don't agree it should be like this, but it is). He'll remain on the ballot, so we'll see if he picks up votes elsewhere.
1
In the past, the Iowa caucus has been a source of humor. The irony of it's importance when it's much less important than other states or regions of the country.
The zeitgeist has changed. There is a grossly, inappropriate person occupying the most important or powerful position in the world.
Every detail in every event the democratic party takes part in has to be perfect. Winning is not everything. It is the only thing!
6
Iowa doesn't predict the eventual winner give all candidates a fighting chance, but it does plenty to reveal the character of the front runners, especially those looking at defeat like Trump, who, at the prospect, suddenly announced he'd heard a lot of people were saying Ted Cruz's father may have had a role in the assassination of JFK. Cruz went on to win in Iowa, but Trump had shown voters right across the US the extraordinary lengths he would go to to win; a quality the poorly educated looking for entertainment and thrills over relevant experience and responsible leadership, tragically found themselves unable to resist.
3
Charles is completely correct that Iowa has got to go. Not only are the state’s demographics problematic, but the caucus format is outdated, complicated, and it seems, prone to error.
South Carolina, which is actually too diverse—half of the party is black—to be representative, is not a good choice to kick off the primaries, either.
Let’s go with Nevada or my home state, which will decide the next election, Pennsylvania.
1
I do not see why any of the states in this concept should be caucus states. There is no reason to have any caucuses in the primaries. The elections in November are just that, and it makes sense that the people best able to win elections would be those who have won elections.
If Iowa and Nevada want to continue to hold caucuses, they are free to, but they shouldn't count for nomination delegates.
5
Yes, Iowa is not representative of the nation as a whole. But, in and of itself, that isn't the same thing as saying the Iowa caucuses are too undemocratic. And they are undemocratic for the reasons given here. Entire voter demographics are never represented. They are systematically biased in favor of certain kinds of candidates. Of course, Iowa should get its proportional say no matter how unrepresentative it is. It should have just the same election oomph as any other 3-million citizen state. However, putting Iowa first makes its unrepresentative population a problem of democracy. The candidates of other kinds of Americans never get a chance. And having four states vote first together doesn't fix the lack of democracy inherent in the caucus process itself. The elderly, the un-white, the disabled, people with two jobs, people with small children will still be systematically prevented from participating. The South Carolina and New Hampshire primaries will not be caucuses and will not suffer from the lack of democracy inherent in caucuses.
4
There is yet another reason why caucuses should be banned as part of the presidential nominating process. Caucuses favor one personality type. Most people prefer to make the most important political decision in private and not to announce it to the world.
45
The first question we have to ask is whether we want the nominee to be primarily representative of the Democratic Party or do we want the nominee to win the election.
We need to win the electoral college - that means winning swing states - that means prioritizing primary voters in swing states that allow independents to participate.
All Democratic nominees agree to campaign against Trump regardless of the eventual nominee.
We ought to at least let the people in swing states tell us who they need to help us make that happen.
18
Imagine a world without Russian interference in the election. Imagine a world in which a Trump hasn’t tainted the results beforehand by proclaiming if he loses it’s rigged. Imagine an election in which voter suppression, media prognostication, and Facebook fake news doesn’t play a role. Imagine a world in which big money doesn’t play a part in the choice of candidate.
Charles’s idea is grand, but all of the above must be eliminated to have free and fair elections.
46
Brilliant! Iowa could keep its weird system if it wanted, because other players would be involved. It wouldn't be a huge leap to a national, all-at-once primary, so we could still see some retail, hands-on politicking, although I understand that is going away anyway to some extent. All in all, a great idea.
3
@John Bergstrom Not sure why they keep that system? Money/people resources? Because the media have highlighted it? Am I missing why? This is a real question.
I'm ready to bring back the smoke-filled backroom (but without the smoke). It was the closest thing we had to what the Electoral College was supposed to be: a group of informed, responsible citizens carefully evaluating candidates and choosing the one best for the nation.
2
@617to416
"Smoke filled backrooms" meaning no history making, charismatic, globally admired
Kennedy, Obama eventual Presidency.
1
I also prefer a four-state solution, and those four are all small enough that the candidates can be put to the test by organizing their ground game and volunteers, while voters can have a chance to see and even meet them. I hate that my state votes so late (June) so we never have a say in the primaries, but I also like that candidates are "tested" in those smaller, early states.
To come up with some other configuration means that candidates like Bloomberg can simply walk in and purchase the nomination. I hope we do not head that way as a country (although we may be headed that way yet).
One more thing: the party needs to get rid of Perez. Let's get someone who can inspire us to volunteer and get out the vote.
21
@avrds if you want inspiration, don’t look to Perez or to some other politician. Look at your children, or if you don’t have them, look at a nearby mountain or bird or tree. What sort of world do you want to leave them? That should be enough.
2
@Shyamela
Agreed. That's exactly why I volunteer. Was out collecting ballot signatures for Warren on Friday and Saturday.
But I don't see much inspiration coming from the DNC. They seem determined to undermine Warren and Sanders and figure out new rules as they go along so Bloomberg can win (not to mention just throwing up their hands over Iowa -- "enough is enough"). Not looking good right now.
3
I disagree with almost everything you say, but in this topic you are absolutely correct. Iowa isn’t a good proxy for our country as a whole, if it ever did.
4
Blow is on to something. While you could create a more rational system, where you had primaries in representative (of the US demographics) states that maybe included a small percentage of the total US pop (say 10%) so that small campaigns had a chance to prove themselves, and gradually move to larger states once the campaigns have proven themselves viable (rotating states roles from election to election), Blow's idea is brilliant, because it is more likely to be used. Blow considers the history and creates a great compromise, that allows those early states to continue to have their special status, while correcting for some of the worst deficiencies of the current system.
11
Thank you for making a suggestion. The problem with four states going at once--it's expensive and money is proxy for a good candidate. There are solutions to that--public financing, but that has a snowball's chance.
Iowa is not a demographic mirror of the country, but we're not a bad representation of the Electoral College. But we should get rid of the Electoral College.
I think you're right that Iowa's a non-starter for Republicans--they're too religious.
Although we're too white, we Democrats work hard to select a candidate who will be a winner in other states. Barack Obama's a great example of that--he certainly doesn't look like the average Iowan, but he looked like a winner to us. Would South Carolina have chosen him?
Iowans take the caucuses very seriously. We host candidates in our homes and communities. We get to know them because they are up close and it's personal.
Yes, we should improve the caucuses. I think we should have absentee ballots with ranked choice to add to those who attend the caucuses.
My husband and I traveled three hours to Port Charlotte, Florida to attend a satellite Iowa caucus with another 135 Iowans.
About 25% of registered Democrats showed up--an amazing turn out at a specific time and difficult chore. Probably not that different from other states' primaries where party hacks rule the game.
Show me another state where the citizens are willing to take a huge part of their lives every 4 to 8 years. Iowa's great!
2
@Terry Lowman Thanks for your on-the-ground perspective. Having a tradition of doing this is a kind of infrastructure. There is a culture built around it, like hosting people in your homes. Not sure how to replicate that if we rotate states.
1
Caucuses are an anachronism and need to be dispensed with.
Since elections are supposed to be about people making the choice, perhaps the populous states should be where the primaries start.
California, Texas, Florida and New York, in that order, are the most populous states. And diverse. So it makes sense to start with those. Chances are it would be virtually impossible to win the nomination without these four states anyway.
30
A problem for Democrats is at least one large metropolitan area should be included in the first primary since the strength of the party is in such areas and they are almost all very diverse but they are big markets which makes advertising very expensive. This would give a large advantage to candidates with a lot funding and especially to billionaire candidates. Having four states be included on the first primary day would also require more finding and would make traveling much more difficult for candidates, particularly if the states are spread out across the United States. However, at the very least if Iowa holds is position as the first state the caucus should be eliminated and replaced with the more democratic primary voting, preferably a closed primary so only registered Democrats could vote fpor their party's nominee.
7
Here's my solution: switch up the order of the primaries and caucuses each year, but keep the first states small states.
But it is vital to have a first primary, especially for democrats, who on the national campaign trail address for the most party exclusively city people, never rural people in, say Iowa. For the Democratic idea to prevail, we need to get small states on board, too, and that starts with hundreds of millions of dollars and months of attention being poured onto small states.
2
Great idea.
But I despair of the Democrats having the sense to adopt such a change. Iowa and New Hampshire business interests, local media, and state voters are far too dug-in with the money and political prominence that "first in the nation" caucus/primary bring them, and Democratic politicians are far too timid to challenge these sacred cows.
2
Bravo. The only problem is that other states might race forward to fill the gap between the 4 states and super Tuesday. If they could agree to not do so, this is a good approach.
3
What we need is a complete overhaul of our system with The National Popular Vote:
“The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes.”
62
@Bronx Jon I think you confuse the primaries with the general election. The National Popular Vote bill is to overcome the electoral college while staying within the constitution, as the constitution specifically states how presidents are elected.
However the constitution says nothing about how parties elect their nominees for president. Parties are in control of the primaries. In the past there were no popular vote elections for the nominee actually: party officials decided how the nominee was. So at least it;s a bit better now.
18
@Robert
My point is that the whole system is flawed and especially the fact that the candidate with the most votes isn’t guaranteed to win. And the Electoral College is still preserved with the. National Popular Vote:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
@Bronx Jon
This is impossible because no swing state would enforce it.
1
It looks to me like there is a quasi-consensus on the need for the process and sequence to change, and this is a great recommendations, but its implementation is the challenge, with the need for state governments to approve the changes.
2
I agree with much of what is said here. However, I thought the purpose of having the primary in a place like Iowa was the low cost of entry. So I am wondering, having to compete in 4 separate markets may be difficult for candidates without previous nationwide exposure.
The suggestion mentioned in other places about rotating first state may be a better idea.
2
@Mary Bowman
This is an issue and a likely consequence of the proposal, but candidates tend to focus most heavily on one or two of the first four states under the current system anyway. Bernie is everywhere, Bloomberg is nowhere. but most of others have some narrowing.
1
Iowa voted twice for Barack Obama and then for Donald Trump. I've been caucusing since 1972, and, although we may not be representative of the Democrat party as it's viewed on the east and west coasts, we are representative of the nation. Until Democrats figure out it's the flyover territory in this country that determines elections, they are destined to lose.
9
@Deb EXCELLENT point made and "Je suis d'accord tout a fait!" Well written as well and succinct!
4
@Deb So what's Iowa told us this time, Deb?
12
@Deb Iowa is way smaller than New York. Why should an Iowa voter count for more than a New Yorker, just because they happen to be far from a coast?
4
A super primary round of primaries sounds like a great idea. Why don’t we also ask the voters if they want to keep dirty money in or out of politics? We can’t allow a small number of men to dictate how our country should be governed.
70
@Ted
Why doesn’t every campaign spend all of their money on Facebook? I thought that was how to throw an election.
Ok. That is a Solomonic solution. But what is the problem with asking Iowa to relinquish its first place after more than a century of holding the privilege? Can someone give some background history as how this concession and privileged position was acquired in the first place? I'm not clear on the protocols of the primaries' order.
2
@tdb It's an accident of history. Iowa had this early caucus since the 1800's that no one paid any attention to till 1972. Then in 1976 Carter used it to make a media splash. It's been the big deal since then.
There are some good proposals to have groups of low population states go first in a rotation (or in a lottery that includes elimination if a state was previously first). That would spread this around and get variety in the process (and not be quite so old and white) without throwing the whole process to the coasts.
As an Iowan myself, I'd rather a primary. I've caucused every time I lived here, but the process leaves out too many people.
6
The Iowa Caucus last week demonstrated everything that is wrong with Democratic electoral politics.
As Mr. Blow notes, the state is overwhelmingly white. There are no large urban centers in Iowa. The population is older. Iowa is hardly representative of all Democratic voters.
Then we have the debacle itself. No result totals for three days, and we've now come to learn that the Iowa Democratic Party is certifying results that still include mathematical mistakes.
Iowa has an outsize influence on our election results, and thus it has an equally important responsibility to "get it right." Their voters have an incredible electoral advantage over the rest of us, because their votes give disproportionate weight to a candidate who may have little national appeal, but will be, nonetheless crowned "the winner" should he win the Iowa Caucus. And perception is everything in politics.
That the Democratic Party in Iowa, with such a small number of voters, could not complete a simple mathematical process reflects terribly on not only Iowa, but the rest of the us.
And this disaster of a primary process has given Trump an argument to deny legitimacy of the November election, as he may cry "rigged" should he lose.
Iowa Democrats, sadly, have hurt the rest of us at a time when we least needed it. And the problems they've created were all self-inflicted. None of this needed to happen.
Iowa should never again be permitted to go first in the primary season.
And Mr. Blow
103
@Roland Deschain
Continuing my comment -
And Mr. Blow is right. Primaries should be conducted with some geographic and democratic parity.
7
Interesting idea. My preference would be to have all primaries on the same day--with ranked choices.
268
@Alison Seems like a great idea until you consider it would make the primary a nationwide and therefor very expensive proposition. This would provide no chance for a breakout of a less well heeled candidate. Just Trumps and Bloombergs.
11
@Alison
I agree with ranked choice voting, especially in the primaries. We could have regional primaries, two weeks apart, and get the primary season over more quickly.
21
@Alison
The problem with having the primaries on a single day is that it gives the well known and well funded candidates an unfair advantage. Spreading the primaries allows lesser known candidates to introduce themselves to a much broader audience in the critical time frame days or weeks before the primaries.
14