by David Lightman
"The American dream that any boy or girl can grow up to he president in the United States has become a nightmare,'' says Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee who has run for president and now is joining others in seeking an overhaul of primary elections.
The presidential primary system is a mess that needs a lot of fixing, a group of senators said today, proposing a series of regional contests starting in 2012 that would determine each party's White House nominee. The history of attempts to reform the system is not promising.
"The current presidential primary election system has come to a point where it starts too early but ends too soon," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
Lieberman, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination in 2004, joined Alexander, who tried for his party's nomination twice, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, (D-Minn.) in offering the proposal.
Under the current calendar for 2008, Iowa will hold the nation's first caucuses Jan. 14 and New Hampshire will be the site of the nation's first primary eight days later. Florida will follow on Jan. 29, the first megastate to hold a primary this winter.
But on Feb. 5, at least 18 states will hold primaries or caucuses, and the nominations will probably be decided -- more than six months before the parties' nominating conventions.
As a result, said Alexander: "The presidential nomination system is broken.''
Under their plan, adopted by the National Association of Secretaries of State in 2000, the country would be divided into four regions, east, south, midwest and west.
One region would hold its nominating events on the first Tuesday, or shortly thereafter, during the first week in March. Another region would hold contests in April, another in May and another in June.
Iowa and New Hampshire would retain their status as the first, as each would hold its elections before March.
The chage would start in 2012, with a lottery held to determine which region goes first. In 2016, the order wold be rotated so that the first region of 2012 would go last in 2016.
Lieberman prefers that Iowa and New Hampshire be included in the regional mix and not go first, as he noted that in most recent elections the winner of at least one of those contests went on to win the nomination.
Efforts to reform the calendars have gone nowhere in Congress.
Lieberman tried offering changes in 1996 and 1999. Political parties and individual states are reluctant to let lawmakers set their dates.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Yes! And there should be a law that one cannot run for president until Labor Day weekend of the prior year, for instance Labor Day weekend of this year, Labor Day weekend of 2011, etc. A two-year presidential election cycle is just way too much!
Posted by: John D | July 31, 2007 2:12 PM
I agree with that. It's just way too early for me to care who's running now.
Posted by: Cheryl | July 31, 2007 2:53 PM
Dates aren't the only thing that needs reform. How about a system that doesn't require billion dollar backers for a campaign to be funded?
There very well may be honest, sincere candidates (on both sides), who really believe they could make a difference in this country, but just can't compete against the deep pocketed freinds of the "big boys".
Posted by: Steve | July 31, 2007 4:26 PM
John D.,
I agree. But the rub is how to make such a law Constitutional.
Between the the 1st Ammendment's freedom of speech clause and defining "running for president" I don't see how to get from here to there.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 31, 2007 5:19 PM
John D, Doug Zook,
I agree. But indeed how to get from here to there, Doug. There certainly must be ways of reworking the constitution and electoral politics without trampling on our liberies. Unfortunately, to do so we'd be asking politicians to completetly rework the present system that is so flush with big money.
It's sort of like expecting Major League Baseball to actually (as opposed to pretending to) rid the sport of substance abuse. They really don't want to.
Posted by: [INSERT CLEVER POST NAME HERE] | July 31, 2007 8:23 PM
The answer? Back to the "smoke-filled" room at the conventions (two months before the election) for delegates to select the best person to represent each party. The result? Some pretty fair candidates like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. Sure, a few duds now and then, but the candidates did not have to be zillionaires, the campaigns lasted two months, not two years, and didn't cost $100 billion and delegates from throughout the nation made the
choices, not just a handful of primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Sure would be easier on everyone and would get some quality candidates who
don't have the time to campaign for two years. Anyone see an FDR in the current crop of Democrats or Republicans?
Posted by: Sheffield | July 31, 2007 8:47 PM
After chewing on this a little, I think the remedy is for the parties to agree on rules that would limit electioneering for any candidate using a D or R after their name.
It'd go something like this:
No formation of an exploratory before X number of months before the 1st primary.
No fundraising before X number of months before the 1st primary.
Advertising by a candidate cannot commmence until such and such date before the 1st primary.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 1, 2007 10:21 AM