Fair Vote has sketched a proposal to reform the US presidential nomination system. It is meant to be a “best of both worlds” proposal, with state-level contests early in the process, culminating in a runoff among the finalists on a single day nationally.
Following is their synopsis, but as the bloggers’ union requires me to say, read the whole thing.
The entire political universe, from the heights of the Washington establishment to the depths of the grassroots, agrees that our presidential nominating process needs to be reformed. But while there is broad consensus that a problem exists, there are myriad diagnoses as to what actually needs fixing. As the parties begin internal and interparty discussions about what elements need tweaking, it‘s time to take a serious look at more extensive and comprehensive reforms that will truly fix the process. The parties should begin to debate a plan that includes traditional state-based nomination contests culminating in a final, decisive national primary.
I am not going to comment, for now, on the substance of the proposal. However, I am going to single out seemingly small item for criticism:
More specifically, we like the idea of making that primary a set day in early June – perhaps the first Tuesday, or, more daringly, the first Saturday.
OK, but why Saturday? Please don’t be so “daring”! Expect (and deserve) lots of push back on that idea form the Jewish community, if the proposal becomes “serious.” Why not Sunday? Yes, I know that is a rather important day of the week to a rather larger segment of the population than us Jews. But most Christians do not have anything like the restrictions on Sunday activities that observant Jews have on Saturdays. Presumably that is why most of the world’s Christian-majority countries regularly vote on Sunday. We should do so, too.
Matthew,
Thanks for posting this. Consider my interest piqued. But why Friday, FairVote? Why? This is a good idea; not one to bury on a Friday like its something some presidential administration wants us to forget about.
That said, this is a solid idea, but as Rob and Paul point out, is not one without drawbacks. Here are my thoughts:
1) This is another idea that will require coordinated effort from both national parties. I’m not as concerned on this front as I once was. Folks from both sides seem to be mindful of the fact that now is the time to hammer something meaningful out on reform. Of course, one man’s meaningful is another man’s useless.
2) $$$$ The idea of moving congressional primaries to coincide with the national primary is ingenious. It is also imperative. Without that, states would be confronted with footing the bill for another election. I’m not sure, but I’m fairly certain that this current period is not the proper time to be pushing an additional election to be paid for with taxpayer money. Call it a hunch. The other side of this is that it probably wouldn’t just be congressional primaries moved but all primaries. And there may be some complications there because that would obviously include state legislative primaries. If any perceived negative impact surfaces there, state legislators — the folks primarily tasked with initiating these election date changes — may put their own self interests above the national party’s.
3) Delegates/conventions. One major piece missing from this puzzle is the delegate piece. What effect does the national primary have on the allocation of delegates? Are the state contests merely just the first round? Does the national primary determine the allocation of all the delegates or just a certain percentage?
I don’t know that any of these things are deal breakers, but I do think they are factors that would have to be ironed out to some extent to avoid any unintended consequences. And despite the fact that I often come down hard on these reform plans, all I ultimately want to avoid are unintended consequences that make matters worse. But some might argue with me about the ways in which things could get worse in the current presidential nomination system.
Thanks again, Matthew. Good post.
Seed planted by Josh Putnam — 17 July 2009 @ 23:14
Hell, why not the whole damned weekend?
Seed planted by Jonathan Lundell — 17 July 2009 @ 23:32
Now you know how we felt up in Canada when the Tories called an election for yom tov Sukkot. Advance polling helps, but I’m definitely with Jonathan–what’s wrong with multiple days of voting?
Seed planted by Vasi — 18 July 2009 @ 01:52
Australian elections are always on a Saturday but it is easy to cast a pre-poll vote more or less at will. I have some relatives who are Seventh-Day Adventist (okay, not the same as Jewish and not quite as strict on the Saturday Sabbath, but still strict) and they vote en route to or from church.
Possibly having compulsory voting might, for some, change the theological equation. I know some conservative Presbyterians who might not voluntarily vote on a Sunday (based on the fact they don’t use public transport on Sundays because this requires someone else to work for money), but who would probably (on both Romans 13 and “works of charity of necessity” grounds) vote on a Sunday if the Civil Magistrate doth command thereof.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 19 July 2009 @ 06:51
It is a question that deserves more consideration than I can give it, but I do recall that one or more of the main Canadian Jewish organizations protested a but when the most recent federal election was set for Sukkot (as Vasi already referenced).
The sorts of concerns I refer to in my objection to Saturday as election day are not necessarily mollified by the ease of early or absentee voting. I have always seen voting as very much a communal act, and thus the responsibility of every citizen to show up AT the polls. Yes, perhaps it is quaint or even irrational. But I do object, as a Jew, to being put in the place of choosing between two very important communal obligations. And certainly, whether or not “the Civil Magistrate doth command” would not resolve the conundrum!
I should look into whether or not Australian Jewish community organizations have raised issues with their country’s Saturday voting, and obligatory voting.
Seed planted by MSS — 19 July 2009 @ 14:35
By the way, my first reaction was actually Jonathan’s: make it the whole weekend. There is no reason there has to be ONE election day, other than the possibility that we can’t guarantee that the media don’t spoil things for Sunday voters by telling them what the vote breakdown was on Saturday.
Seed planted by MSS — 19 July 2009 @ 14:50
Oh, and thanks, Josh, for addressing the actual substance! (For those who do not know, Josh is a political scientist PhD candidate specializing in primary reform, with a terrific blog that has been linked here for over a year; click his name at the end of his comment above to go have a look).
I was wondering about the delegates, too.
I would assume/hope that a national primary would have to be decisive, and therefore all delegates (if we must have them) could be selected at the earlier regional contests.
Seed planted by MSS — 19 July 2009 @ 14:54
MSS, I can’t say I have ever heard the matter raised by Jewish Australians as an issue. I can’t recall (eg) Barry Cohen MP, Michael Danby MP, or former judge Marcus Einfeld mentioning this in any of their (collectively voluminous) writings on democracy and rights in this country. Indeed, two Jewish Governors-General (Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir Zelman Cowen) have issued writs for Saturday elections without, as far as I have heard, any qualms.
I’m saying this not to refute your position but to add extra information from a country that has Saturday voting and a large, well-regarded, politically-active and influential Jewish population in its two largest cities: ie, that the dog hasn’t barked, so to speak.
Caveat #1 that the majority of Australian Jews seem to be Reform or secular, ie, they may not be as strict in their interpretation of the Sabbath.
Caveat #2 that some protest did arise from Australian Jewish community the when PM Rudd convened his “Australia 2020″ ideas summit in April 2008… on the Passover. A red-faced Rudd said he couldn’t change the date but organised a special session for Jewish summit delegates. However, that involved (a) delegates attending, not merely voting, and (b) the Passover, not just “any” Saturday.
Judging from Rudd’s and the public’s reaction, I assume that if there were a sustained demand from Australian Jews to abandon Saturday-only polling (possibly switching to Sunday or… hmm, Friday has problems too), the govt would eventually respond in some way.
On the other hand, having a non-working-day polling day is seen as very important in keeping turnout high among working-class voters – contrast the US where some have argued that the need to take unpaid leave from work to vote on a Tuesday may constitute a disguised poll tax.
The New Republic ran a piece in 2000 refuting claims that Joe Liebermann would be unable to serve as President (or Acting) on a Saturday: the gist of it was that Liebermann’s brand of Orthodox Judaism allows something analogous to the Calvinists’ “works of charity or necessity” exception.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 19 July 2009 @ 23:05
Thanks for the kind words, Matthew.
If you and your readers are interested, I’ve got a more detailed discussion/critique of the plan posted over at FHQ now. Some of the same ground is covered there and in my comment above, but I’ve augmented things with a few items I thought about over the weekend.
Seed planted by Josh Putnam — 20 July 2009 @ 11:08
Very interesting, Tom.
Yes, Australia certainly has one of the larger and more influential Jewish communities in the world (although I was not aware that there had been Jewish GGs). On the “Reform or secular” matter, I wonder if the balance between orthodox and non-orthodox is much different than it is in Canada, or if the objections to the Sukkot poll in the latter country were confined to the Orthodox sector (Vasi, do you know?).
For the record, I am not Orthodox, not even close. But I do observe Shabbat. In fact, I am always bothered by the common assumption that only orthodox care about Shabbat observances (and that is not directed at you, Tom, but rather more widely.) (I do not observe in the way that the Orthodox define “observe”; I also do not recognize their right to define the terms of observance). I would support my orthodox community members in their objections to the idea of Saturday voting, even though I have no self-imposed restrictions on driving or signing my name, or other acts of going to the polls that would violate some definitions of Shabbat observance.
Seed planted by MSS — 20 July 2009 @ 13:17
Josh,
Interesting point in your posting that Huckabee and Romney would likely not have withdrawn early if a national runoff primary was held. Late primaries would be much more competitive if candidates were still fighting for second place.
MSS,
Canadian Jewry is more orthodox (and/or “traditional”) than in most other countries. Many non-orthodox or cross-denominational organizations complained a little, but it was only in orthodox communities where voters continued to be irked. There are a couple of orthodox/traditional MPs, they must have had a strange day…
Seed planted by Vasi — 20 July 2009 @ 16:08
Perhaps the solution is to pick a mid-week day (Monday through Thursday – as far as I know, only Judaism, Christianity and Islam have particular holy days each week) and declare that a public holiday for elections.
However, this would work much better with fixed election dates. With dissoluble legislatures, it might be criticised as too disruptive if a whole day becomes a public holiday (with 4-8 weeks’ notice) because an election is called. Perhaps this is why Australia and most European countries have weekend voting, while the UK has a non-holiday weekday.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 22 July 2009 @ 03:30
The appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs in 1930 was deeply controversial. George V and the British government both resisted the appointment initially. The king is supposed to have complained to his diary about an Irish Catholic Labor prime minister advising a Jewish viceroy. The opposition was on class grounds (we want an aristocrat), monarchist grounds (the king shouldn’t be forced to make the appointment). imperial grounds (we want a Brit) and Jewish grounds (we want a Christian, preferably a Protestant).
The dispute ultimately led to the (other) Balfour Declaration that (1) the king would be advised on matters concerning a Dominion by the ministers in that realm and not by the British government and (2) the king would have the same relationship with Dominion ministers that he had with British minsters.
I could not find the king’s diary, but I did find a slightly strange report in Time:
Seed planted by Alan — 23 July 2009 @ 13:33
I am trying to imagine how a Jew ever accepted being Knight Grand Cross.
Thanks for the fascinating history, Alan.
Seed planted by MSS — 23 July 2009 @ 16:00
Both Balfour declarations, btw, were issued by the same Balfour. Scullin, the prime minister of Australia, was told it was simply unthinkable for the British ministers to transmit his advice to the king. Some months later he was in London for a meeting of Imperial prime ministers and shocked king, court, aristocracy and establishment to the core on a courtesy visit to the palace. He whipped out a letter of advice and handed it directly to George V without any warning.
Seed planted by Alan — 23 July 2009 @ 20:00
The King’s official proclamation did not state (as was usual) that he was “graciously pleased to appoint” Isaacs as G-G; it simply stated that he “appointed”.
Having said that, this was the 1930s. Isaacs had served on the High Court the previous decade.
Joe Lyons, a later Aust PM, was dining with the King when HM asked “Do you have many Irish Catholics in Australia, Lyons?” “A few”, the Irish-Catholic PM (father of eight children) replied. “You want to keep an eye on them,” the King advised, “They breed like rabbits”.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 23 July 2009 @ 21:00
When the (other) Balfour declaration was being drafted Australia insisted on a clause that the wording of future announcements would be recommended by the Dominion ministers.
Seed planted by Alan — 23 July 2009 @ 21:32
An Order of St Michael might be more theologically compatible than a George Cross… By the way, MSS, I use “strict” in a descriptive rather than a normative sense, ie, not as a synonym for “devout”. Osama bin Laden is a much stricter Muslim than Megawati Sukarnoputri, but I’d deny that he’s any more devout. Protestants and Catholics alike would probably agree that overall Catholics are stricter than Protestants (eg, fasting, church attendance, etc) but all Prots and most Caths would not say this means Prots are less devout.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 24 July 2009 @ 00:33
I know it’s a long way from primary reform, but the Balfour Declaration 1926 is actually a fairly interesting document for the student of institutions.
Seed planted by Alan — 24 July 2009 @ 08:36
The Iowa caucus will apparently be moved to a Saturday at 1:00 p.m. in 2010. The Des Moines Register blog, in a couple of updates to the initial news, briefly discusses Jewish community impact and responses.
Seed planted by MSS — 29 July 2009 @ 16:55
How about 10 primaries, with 43-44 Congressional Districts up? Or 5 primaries with 87 Congressional Districts up?
Seed planted by Derek — 08 September 2011 @ 04:31
I am glad that Derek revived this thread. Its discussion of Saturday voting has even greater resonance now that I’m going to New Zealand for the 26 November 2011 election. That would be Saturday, 26 November.
I should look back at the book on New Zealand’s Jewish community by Stephen Levine (one of the best known Kiwi political scientists) and see if he refers to any controversies over Saturday election day, which I believe has been the NZ practice for some time.
(Sorry, but nothing to add for now on US primaries.)
Seed planted by MSS — 08 September 2011 @ 13:00
NZ elections have been on Saturday since 1951 (I can remember enough civics to guess which election to look up on Wikipedia). You can vote early fairly easily (and for any electorate at any polling place, a significant number of which are open two weeks early).
PS you have my email if you want to meet for a beverage when you are in Auckland.
Seed planted by Errolwi — 08 September 2011 @ 19:48
Time to revive this thread once again!! I was thinking about a 2-tiered primary system:
1) District caucuses: each Congressional District chooses state delegates to the state convention and also National Delegates from the districts
2) Statewide primary: all candidates that have at least 15% of the total state delegates will qualify for the primary; put a threshold for the first round of allocation, no threshold for further rounds.
I was thinking about this plan for a while. Combines the will of the passionate (for caucuses) and the will of the people (for primaries). Supporters of smaller candidates in the first round can consider building support for larger candidates.
Seed planted by Derek — 24 May 2012 @ 21:39
OK, I’m back again, guys!! After months of analyzing and reading about electoral reform history in the USA, I’ve come up with my own plan to reform the Presidential Primaries.
All states will have either a state convention, caucus or primary to allocate delegates. All ballot-qualified parties will be automatically able to start their nominations in each state. The candidate with the most delegates in each party will be the nominee of its party in that determined state.
In 2008, you’d see many interesting match-ups. Iowa would have Huckabee-Obama, New Hampshire would see McCain-Hillary, etc.
I’m also sure that in the 08 primaries, Romney, Huckabee and Edwards would’ve stuck it out towards the end of the primary season. For example, I’m quite positive that Edwards would’ve picked up, at least, a few states.
I sincerely think this is the way that the Presidential nominees should be chosen, since it reflects the republican style of government in a way. Plus, forget about the idea of Vice-presidential picks at the convention!
Seed planted by Derek — 14 August 2012 @ 05:27
The original writers of the U.S. Constitution seemed that selecting a president would work something like this, in which there wouldn’t usually be national campaigns but there would be lots of favorite son candidates from particular states. That is part of the reason for the Electoral College. It seems to have been assumed that presidential elections would normally be determined by the House of Representatives voting procedure (which is at least as strange as that of the Electoral College).
It obviously didn’t work out that way. Actually the Whigs tried the “run several regional candidates to try to game the Electoral College” strategy in two elections in the 1830s. It didn’t work and they dropped it.
At this point the executive offices in the United States are too powerful for parties to do anything but put all their efforts around one candidate. This is also a big factor in pushing the United States into such a strict two party system.
Seed planted by Ed — 14 August 2012 @ 10:37