The Push to Be Relevant is Insane

David Broder has a pretty decent column up about the push by the states to be "relevant" in the presidential nominating process. The result--madness.

The mad rush of states to advance their nominating contests in hopes of gaining more influence has produced something so contrary to the national interest that it cries out for action.

The process is not over. Just last week, Florida jumped the line by moving its primary up to Jan. 29, a week ahead of the Feb. 5 date when -- unbelievably -- 22 states may hold delegate selection contests, either primaries or caucuses.

Florida's move crowds the traditional leadoff primary in New Hampshire, which had been set for Jan. 22. And New Hampshire is unhappy about the competition from two caucuses planned even earlier in January, in Iowa and Nevada. So its secretary of state, William M. Gardner, who has unilateral authority to set the New Hampshire voting date, is threatening to jump the rivals, even if it means voting before New Year's Day.

This way lies madness.

The one-up-manship has gotten ridiculous. What we have now is effectively a national primary on Feb. 5. At this point, why not have the entire field appear on a ballot and the top candidates from each party appear in a run-off. In effect that is what we have. Broder's advice is sensible:

The situation screams for repair. In my view, the parties would be well advised to make the necessary fixes themselves, rather than wait for Congress to devise remedial legislation.

The mandate for the next pair of national party chairmen should be to agree on a sensible national agenda for the primaries -- either a rotating regional system that gives all states a turn at being early or a plan that allows a random mix of states to vote, but only on dates fixed in advance by the parties, and separated at intervals that allow voters to consider seriously their choices.

It would be close to criminal to allow a repeat of this coming year's folly in 2012.

I like the idea of a rotating regional primary system. We are fortunate enought to have the five biggest states in the union be in different geographical regions. You could have a Western primary centered around California, a midwestern primary around Illinois, a southern primary around Texas, a Southeastern around Florida, a Mid-Atlantic around Pennsylvania and a Northeastern around New York. The parties could then rotate the leading primary and schedule three weeks between each set, so that the process is at least three months long from the first primary to the last. As the population moves around the country, some states will become larger and smaller. The parties can then shuffle the alignments of states

A regional primary system not only makes sense in terms of really testing the candidates appeal, but it allows each region to make a claim on being relevant. The current system is madness and the parties have the power to make the proper changes. But don't leave it to Congress--in that path too lies madness.