There seems to be growing consensus around the need to reform the Presidential nominating process. Few like the way our current system works, and there are a wide range of proposals to change it.

The problem is that while we agree on our dislike of the current system, we disagree on how to fix it, or even what the problem is. Some of the solutions proposed are imperious at best: trying to make every detail of our primary system perfect. One proposal I read wanted to reform everything down to the details of who moderates the debates.

The saying KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) applies to reforming the nominating process. The more details, the more areas addressed, the more complexity added in, the more people you need on board, the less chance you’re going to get something done.

The Problems

In an interview with Stateline at the National Governor’s Association, Mississippi Governor and Former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour defined the problem in two words. “Frontloading” and “Compression.”

What do these forces do? If you like the idea of political ads running around Christmas, Presidential Debates being held April of the year before the election, and campaigns that require hundreds of fundraisers and $60 million to run, then you love frontloading and compression. If you like Presidential Campaigns ending as result of a non-binding straw poll held in August the year before the election, this is a great process. If you think it’s great for our Republic that this year’s GOP nomination is decided before voters in 11 states with a combined population of 42.1 million Americans went to the polls, then our current process is wonderful. And if we keep it up, Duncan Hunter’s announcement he was running for president two years before the election is held may seem like a late date to start in a few years.

These two issues must be addressed. Other issues are comparatively unimportant and some people should be left alone.

Some people would like to do away with caucuses. Yet others like myself feel the caucus system is superior. Still, many in states across our country know the Caucus system is far less expensive than holding a presidential primary that may or may not matter, and preferable to not having a voice in the process at all. Let the people of the several states address this, because they’re the ones who pay for these contests.

Alternatives

Many people think that a national primary is a solution. However, it solves nothing. A National Primary would make presidential campaigns more expensive and the process would be just as long as it is today. A National Primary is the ultimate of compression and frontloading combined.

Either, the Delaware system or rotating regional primaries would solve the problems with our current frontloaded process by spreading out states on the basis of size (from smallest to largest) or geography. Both are excellent plans, both however would be hard to pass.

The Delaware Plan would face resistance from large states. Would California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania really agree to be in the last group of states to vote? The Rotating Regional plan would run into resistance from many states that simply didn’t want to do it.

Any of the major reform plans face major challenges. How are you going to force states to participate? A federal law? A party edict? Who is going to fund these primaries? Stripping all delegates from a state hasn’t exactly worked very well for democrats this time around. What else can they try? The Republicans plan of taking away half the delegates until the nominee (like an irresponsible parent) gives them back?

In addition, particularly on the Republican side, many people have a sense of federalism and believe each state should decide the timing of its own contest for itself. How exactly do you force a system on all the states from on high?

A Market Solution

There’s an incentive to move your primary up, but no incentive to vote later in the process. States that move up get to claim more influence over the process. States that don’t get nothing other than saving the cost of holding a special election.

The reason states hold early primaries is so that they can get influence. States can influence presidential politics in two ways. The first is through the momentum they provide a winning candidate and the second is through the pledged delegates they allot.

A pledged delegate is required to vote for a candidate on the first ballot at the national convention, and ultimately winning a majority of the delegates is what the campaign is all about.

So thus, if you change party rules so that states that hold early contests are able to award less pledged delegates, states that vote later will have a greater influence on the process. I don’t favor taking delegates away from states, but rather based on when the election is held, only a certain pecent of delegates will be pledged and any delegates beyond an allowed percentage are elected at the State Convention as Uncommitted, Unpledged Delegates that can vote however they wish on the convention floor. So, these elected delegates will be free agents.

I would propose the following system:

If your state holds its Primary or Caucus before January 15, it cannot award any pledged delegates. If your state holds its Primary or Caucus before February 15, it can award 25% of its delegates as pledged. If your state holds its primary before March 15, it can award 50% of its delegates as pledged. If your state holds its primary before April 15, it can award 75% of its delegates pledged. If your state holds it primary on or after April 15, all of its delegates can be awarded pledged.

Now, it should be noted that this is not the same as the Super Delegate concept. Super Delegates are party bosses who are guaranteed a vote at the convention no matter what. Unpledged delegates would be elected by party members at a convention and entrusted with judgment over the presidential race at the convention.

If this became the policy of political parties, states that have moved up their primaries for presidential influence will have to decide how they want to influence the process. Some will opt to keep their primaries where they are in order to offer momentum to candidates. However, I sort of doubt that California wants to elect 127 unpledged Republican delegates to the national convention, so they would probably move their primary back. Perhaps, you would have a Super Tuesday around Mid-April, but it would not be nearly as packed, because many states would still choose to go in February and March to get more influence despite the loss of pledged delegates. Because of the number of Uncommitted Delegates elected, there would be a greater chance that later states like North Carolina, Indiana, and Idaho would still have a voice in the process by the time the issue reached them.

There are plans that, if implemented, would work as well as this, perhaps better. The problem is that there are many hurdles that over the past eight years have proven almost impossible to get over. And we must do something before we find ourselves in another out of control election.