With many people arguing that the primary election system needs to change there have been a variety of suggestions made. The “Ohio” plan, being considered by the Republican Party, is that first one officially being considered by either of the major parties (first so far as I am aware). The plan incorporates some of the basic ideas of the Rotating Regionals idea that was being promoted by the National Association of Secretaries of State. Essentially the plan would preserve the first 4 states position in the front of the calendar (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina). Then, at three week intervals there would be a group of small states (total of 50 electoral votes between them) and then three vaguely regional clusters of states would rotate in the next three primary dates. The three “regional” groups are
- Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah, and Washington
- Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia
- Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
- Leaving the small states group as -Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and non states like D.C. and Guam
The process would take 3 months.
Now I am looking for answers to two questions:
- Is this a good way to organize the primary process (should the Democratic Party consider a similar approach when they finally conclude their primary this year)?
- Is it better to proceed with this plan that seems politically feasible rather than continue the search for a more perfect approach?