Before any votes were cast in this year’s primaries, states once relegated to the end of the cycle decided to leapfrog each other in the primary calendar, seeking greater input in the process. The result was, at least for the Democrats, chaotic. To some, the need for reform is apparent, and proposals for regional or otherwise staggered primaries promise to restore order. But a consideration of the possible reforms, and their chances for success, should give pause to those who want to drastically change our system for selecting nominees. In the end, change will likely come from within the parties, not from Congress, and will involve incentives for states to spread themselves out in the calendar, as opposed to directives telling them when to hold their elections.

National Primary Woes
As it stands, Super Tuesday constitutes a de facto national primary, said Elaine Kamarck, a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Kennedy School, in an interview with the HPR. The appeal of turning Super Tuesday into an actual national primary day is obvious: it would neutralize claims of unfairness levied by late-primary states against Iowa and New Hampshire. In addition, it is the simplest and quickest way to produce a nominee, allowing the parties to unite early instead prolonged in-fighting, according to David Yepsen, a columnist with the Des Moines Register.

But the downsides of a national primary day should be equally apparent. As Yepsen said in an interview with the HPR, “If you love money in politics, you’ll love” a national primary. Candidates with the most name-recognition and the biggest war chests would have a likely insurmountable advantage, for the retail politics in which all candidates can afford to compete would be eliminated. Furthermore, candidates would likely focus their energies on big media markets and states with huge numbers of delegates. Small states would get to vote on a seemingly fair basis, for they could not claim that the contest had been decided before they went to the polls, but they would not get to see and vet the candidates as intimately as the current process allows. Nominations could be won through ad spending and the force of inevitability.

Regional Primary Concerns
Proposals for reform therefore tend to offer some kind of staggered primary calendar. The plan with the most “traction,” says Yepsen, is that of the National Association of Secretaries of State, which has made its way into a bill sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). The plan calls for the country to be split into four regions, with one voting every month beginning in March.

Such a primary system seems appealing, but it is unlikely to solve the most glaring problems associated with a national primary day. According to Yepsen, the cost of competing in even a single regional primary would be too high to mitigate the impact of money on politics. Instead of concentrating the primaries on just four election days, Kamarck says that her ideal calendar would spread the primaries throughout the spring, with weekly or near-weekly contests, rather than monthly ones. This would guarantee that many different states, with their disparate interests, had input into the nomination before any candidate could claim status as the presumptive nominee or untouchable front-runner. With its recent elevation of South Carolina and Nevada to pre-Super Tuesday status, the Democratic Party followed this line of reasoning: those two states, plus Iowa and New Hampshire, feature diverse demographic and interest groups, which tested the candidates in a variety of conditions and ensured their national intra-party appeal.

Congress vs. the Parties: Reform Prospects
The temptation to have Congress institutionalize such a system is undeniable. But Kamarck and Yepsen agree that any reform bill would be unlikely to both pass Congress and stand up before the Supreme Court. Reform will therefore have to come from within the parties themselves. And the Democrats already have a provision promising states that agree to vote later in 2012 more delegates, proportionally, than states that vote early. Kamarck thinks that such “carrots,” combined with the “stick” of not seating delegates from states that go too early, could bring about the less concentrated, more staggered primary calendar that the Congressional reformers desire. ]]>