Push For Primary Calendar Changes Goes On

CBSNews.com Reports: High Turnout In Dozens Of States Doesn't Make Up For System's Flaws, Critics Say

(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter David Miller.

---

In an election known for its "firsts," there is one that has largely gone unnoticed: For the first time in a long time, most of the country will have ended up having a say in who their choices are in the November general election.

Instead of a series of small states effectively deciding the nominations of both parties -- standard practice for the past few cycles -- 2008 has seen both Democrats and Republicans emerge from those early battles without a clear front-runner. And Super Tuesday, bigger and earlier than ever this year, was not the mere coronation it has been in the past. Only after it was over was John McCain able to claim the mantle of Republican front-runner. In the Democratic race, it took another week's worth of contests for Barack Obama to establish himself as his party's leading candidate.

Overall, small states have had a big role in the process, from the initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire to post-Super Tuesday caucuses in Nebraska and Maine. Yet the big states can't say they were left out this time: California was the center of attention heading into Feb. 5, Florida gave McCain a crucial momentum boost, and Texas and Ohio could effectively decide the Democratic nomination on March 4 -- if Hillary Clinton wins both, Pennsylvania might get to play a role, too.

At the time that California and other states were moving up their primaries, numerous critics said the system being created was unfair to voters, unfair to candidates, and, sometimes, flat out un-American because it would put too much emphasis on money and force too many people to decide too quickly.

But the way in which the presidential race has played out -- with high voter interest and turnout -- would seem to vindicate those who pushed for a campaign calendar that started earlier than ever with the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 and came to a climax when 24 states voted on Super Tuesday, practically a national primary.

"I am encouraged not just by the voter turnout but by the excitement," said California state Sen. Ron Calderon, who sponsored the legislation to move his state's primary to Feb. 5, passage of which inspired many other states to do the same. "The early primary has ignited something in the younger voter. I think the message got out rather clearly to the disenfranchised voters. They usually felt they didn't have any say in who the presidential nominee is going to be."

Calderon, a Democrat, said he would like to take Super Tuesday a step further in the future and establish a true national primary day. But he might be in the minority -- even those who admit that Super Tuesday and the rest of the calendar worked out pretty well this year say that's partially due to unique circumstances.

Going into 2008, it was already known that the country was facing its first election in decades without an incumbent president or vice president running. But then both parties remained without a front-runner for awhile, thanks to a muddled, fractured GOP field and the presence of two Democrats, Clinton and Obama, who both had the organization and resources for the long haul.

Those who are still pushing for major revisions to the nominating calendar are arguing, basically, that in 2008 the system worked in spite of itself.

"If it's a contested race you see voter turnout go up. If it's a lopsided kind of race you see turnout go down," said Todd Rokita, president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, which is promoting a rotating, regional primary system. "The campaigns and personalities have something to do with it."

Drastic changes are still needed to prevent the chaos and leap-frogging among states that resulted in this year's system, Rokita said.

"We still have a gold rush mentality to this process. What we need to do is bring civility and order to it," said Rokita, a Republican who oversees elections in Indiana. "Effectively, half the voters in the country are disenfranchised by this."

He and other state officials are still pushing for a rotating, regional primary in which, after Iowa and New Hampshire, whole regions of the country hold primaries simultaneously, with one region voting every few weeks.

"It's the regional aspect that has a lot of benefit because you get to see the candidates more and they're not zig-zagging across the country on planes like mad hatters," Rokita said.

The rotating regional primary is one of five plans a Republican National Committee panel will consider when it meets in early April. Among them are the "Delaware plan," which places an emphasis on smaller states, the "Michigan plan" in which states' primary dates are determined by lottery, and the "Texas plan," which attempts to create a rotation among groups of demographically diverse states of varying size.

The chairman of the RNC's Standing Committee on Rules, David Norcross, while claiming to have no strong preference for any plan, said the panel’s priorities are clear.

"There were a couple people at the last meeting who took the position that there was a lot of competition and a lot of people got to vote and it was a close race in the beginning and maybe it isn't broken," he said. "But whatever you say, it started too early, in my view and probably was over in six weeks. That's pretty quick. I think the committee will likely adopt a change."

Norcross said it's possible the committee could also increase penalties on states that violate rules by scheduling primaries too early. Even though the RNC stripped Florida of 50 percent of its delegates, the contest was still highly contested and influential. He said that penalty could be increased to 100 percent of delegates -- a punishment identical to the one Democrats inflicted on Michigan and Florida, which has spawned a controversy on how to deal with those states at the Democratic National Convention.

While both parties have already started sparring as the general election nears, they have held informal talks aimed at coming together behind a single plan for nominating contests in 2012. The problem is that while the GOP will adopt its 2012 plan at its convention this year, Democrats won't figure out their plan until after the election.

"If we went ahead and did X and they wanted to adopt X that'd be fine," Norcross said. "If there's something wrong with X, then they'd say 'It'd be nice to be together but we're not going to do that.'"

The Democratic National Committee, so far, isn't letting on much about what strategy it favors, if any. Spokeswoman Stacie Paxton said the party's main concern for now is the general election, though she hinted that changes made to the 2008 calendar are here to stay.

"After a lengthy process, we added South Carolina and Nevada to the pre-window period to ensure more regional and ethnic diversity in the early nominating process," Paxton said. "That was a good first step."

Concerns remain that all these efforts may not pay off. For example, the system Rokita and other state election officials have been promoting has been around for 10 years. And with only one party likely to face a nomination fight in 2012, the desire to adopt a bipartisan solution may dissipate.

Rokita said he hopes otherwise.

"We're optimistic," he said. "A reform like this, to be successful, truly needs the engagement of both parties. Both parties need to be engaged in this and I hope both parties come to the table. I think it would be a wonderful show of unity."

[taddles-2009]

"n a primary, you should vote for a candidate in the party where you are registered. It is an election to select candidates for the general election and not to let voters from another party select the candidate in your party for you.

Posted by sjc_1 at 01:07 PM : Feb 23, 2008"

I agree, primaries should be rotating regional and you must be registered either Dem, Rep or Ind. with Ind being able to vote in either primary.

[taddles-2009]

"Let''''s have all of the primaries on one day.
Posted by JohnSixtySix at 05:25 PM : Feb 23, 2008"

I''m not sure that''s really feasible. I like the idea floated about with 4 regional primaries.

[marlonbrand2]

I Marlon Brando think Hillary would be tuff on the waterfront against terrorism!

[jack3213]

Clinton says " Shame on you Obama" OH, boy, isn''t she one to talk!! LOL. To save face, period, both Dems should concede.

[pilgrimsway-2009]

Hello I''''''''m Anna Nicole Smith I think all of you have heard me. I would vote for Hillary if I had a chance. She at least can handle the job of president because of Her experience. Please Email me with the news that you will do this!
Your friend Anna

[johnsixtysix]

Let''s have all of the primaries on one day. This way, they''ll HAVE to use television and the internet to discuss and debate.

Also, as long as we''re using just television and the internet, let''s include the smaller parties, like the Greens and the Libertarians. Let''s take the corporate media out of the debate process as well. Let''s use PBS or NPR instead. I know there are corporate elements even amongst those entities, especially with PBS, but I think it would be better than having MSNBC decide that Kucinich shouldn''t debate, for instance.

Let''s make it so that people rely less and less on soundbites and more and more on their own research.

[johnsixtysix]

Let''s have all of the primaries on one day. This way, they''ll HAVE to use television and the internet to discuss and debate.

Also, as long as we''re using just television and the internet, let''s include the smaller parties, like the Greens and the Libertarians. Let''s take the corporate media out of the debate process as well. Let''s use PBS or NPR instead. I know there are corporate elements even amongst those entities, especially with PBS, but I think it would be better than having MSNBC decide that Kucinich shouldn''t debate, for instance.

Let''s make it so that people rely less and less on soundbites and more and more on their own research.

[sjc_1]

People can vote for who ever they want in the general election. But if a person is allowed to cross over parties and vote for any candidate, they can alter the outcome.

Let''s say a Republican knows McCain will win the nomination. They decide to cross over and vote for Obama, because they would rather have McCain face Obama than Clinton. This is not right.

In a primary, you should vote for a candidate in the party where you are registered. It is an election to select candidates for the general election and not to let voters from another party select the candidate in your party for you.

[corridorg4]

Senator Clinton was the presumptive front runner up until the primary season actually began. The media was sure of it, her supporter were sure of it, and so was Senator Clinton.

And then the voting actually began. She quickly lost her frontrunner status. This is not a Republican conspiracy - they had their own competitive primaries until Super Tuesday. Nor is this a Karl Rove smear campaign. It has been entirely too clean to have his smell on it.

The fact is, Senators Clinton and Obama are very similar in their ideas and plans. So it comes down to personality. Face it Clinton supporters, Independents and a fair number of Democrats don''t like her. And the Republicans hate her. She never would have been president. How do you win when 60% of the country won''t vote for you?

Please stop trying to create conspiracies where there are none.

[corridorg4]

I really like the idea of a rotating regional primary. That way, the candidates still have the opportunity to visit the states, but without focusing only on four early states. Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire won''t like it, but there are more people in my state that those two combined. Surely they can see the need for some sort of change, especially with MI and FL being not counted at all for the Dems and only half of the delegates counting for the Republicans in MI, FL and SC.

[jerkeedoodle]

Rob,more like the little ships are deserting the sinking rat!

[cfin5]

Ron Paul''s still the one whose gonna get my vote if he keeps his name on the ballot for me to check. If not, then it''s who the "Constitution Party" touts. The others are just a "machs nichts" issue with me.

[dnamj]

I say eliminate the primary process altogether and have two or three rounds of instant runoff voting (you rank your top 5 candidates...).

[rowdytexan2]

I don''t really know what the solution is, but I don''t think people should be limited to a single party choice, in the event they don''t like their own party''s candidate.

The Obama wave though has really got me to thinking that party of Karl Rove''s little plan was to send a bunch of republicans over to vote for Obama so the Neocons don''t have to run against Hillary.

Not really sure about that either, but just a thought running through my head.

[pilgrimsway-2009]

If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE? Would He CHANGE the way to make it easy for terrorists to get into this country to over throw this country? Would He CHANGE the laws for any of His kind? Would He hang out with those who supported tyranny? Would He impose martial law? Could He start unjust wars for His hidden ideology? Could His decisions CHANGE the course for America? Would He CHANGE your civil liberties? Last of all would He CHANGE your mind that you voted for Him? Believe me when I say there are no one with hidden agenda%u2019s in this world!
If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE?

[hillaryin08]

Karl Rove predicted that Hillary would loose the Democrat Nomination two months ago. Coincidence?

Maybe Karl rove is behind the Obamma wave? Aparently he sent a letter to Obamma back in August outlining a five point plan to defeat Hillary.

[pacific_c]

I think a national primary could level the playing field if we also had campaign reform in this way - any and all donations go into a general fund and every candidate draws equally from it. I think we would cut back on politicians owing favors to contributors and with every candidate having the same amount of money, we would hear more from lessor know candidates who may be just what we need. A national primary would also put a stop to crossover voting.

[mollydtt]

Next time, let''s start off with California, then New York, then Texas, etc. After that, then have a primary in Iowa or New Hampshire. I''m sick and tired of 100 per cent of the campaigning catering to the voters of only two states, that really aren''t representative of the nation as a whole.

[infoman5]

A national primary would benefit the candidates with the most money. It is hard to campaign in every state. The way it works now, with just a few states starting, then the others follow later, allows poor candidates to make there case in the first state, then establish momentum.

[sjc_1]

I think it may be time for a national primary the next time around. With all the different dates and inconsistent rules, it is hard to tell if the voters wishes have been heard. Primaries are to select the parties candidates and as such only voters registered in that party should be able to vote for a candidate in that party.