(Jimmy) Carter: Iowa Shouldn't Go First

[sabra]

Source: IowaVotes2008

April 19, 2007 -- Three decades after Iowa vaulted him into the presidential spotlight, former president Jimmy Carter says Iowans should no longer get to make the first pick. Carter made his comments in front of about 6,000 people in Iowa City last night.

He says running for president has become too expensive. He told them instead of Iowa going first, the country should get divided into four regions with a primary on the east coast starting the process. "This will give every American an equal chance to elect candidates and also it will let candidates concentrate their television and radio advertising in particular regions," said Carter.

Read more: http://www.iowavotes2008.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=37

[w4rma]

1. What about dividing the country into four regions with one state from each region chosen to be first

and then one state from each region chosen to be second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.?

So that four states, one from each region, share each primary date.

Also, I wouldn't mind ordering them from smallest population to largest population.

[9119495]

3. Not bad, BUT

in regions where only one party is dominant, I fear candidates (okay democrats) will be spending precious money to win Alabama when there is no way to get it in the general election.

I'd take the regions system you have and put those states with the CLOSEST results in the previous presidential election first. It would challenge both parties to get more serious about working nationally. If Alabama wants all that campaign money, it better get serious on its democratic side. The reverse would be true in say Delaware.

[w4rma]

8. Interesting. That's even better. It would allow states to change their positions.

Yours creates a more dynamic primary schedule.

[flaminbats]

21. Democrats have the majority in the Alabama legislature..

just as they do in Iowa!

but just because Alabama doesn't have a Democratic Governor or US Senator, why should Alabama Democrats not have fair representation in our national convention?

to me four regional primaries would be a great idea, these primaries could all be held within a single month. The idea would make primaries less bloody, while insuring that every state has some influence in the process.

Even better, such regional primaries could be alternated with each election allowing different regions to be first or last in the process! each region would be broken up to include 12-13 states, with each region determining the same amount of convention delegates for each party. Most importantly, these delegates could be selected only to represent a primary candidate based proportionally on the percentage of the popular vote each candidate wins in a state.

but it would be hard, if not impossible to get 50 state legislatures to agree to such a sane process for nominating our candidates.

[9119495]

24. Sorry Alabama...so am I thinking of MS? GA?

I know there is one of the deep south states that is essentially a one-party state...just as there are one-party blue states.

I'm not discounting the importance of a party at the state legislature level, but I do think the states where the presidential contest is likely to be closest should go first. Call it the screw Idaho and Utah plan if you like.

[flaminbats]

25. I call it the screw Democrats in Idaho and Utah plan!

this kind of attitude is what hurts Democrats in states like Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi! I don't understand the argument you are making. If swing states in the Presidential Elections go first, then why should heavily Democratic or Republican be forced to wait last? This doesn't just screw Utah and Idaho, but also states like Massachusetts and Vermont!

Georgia is not a one party state, the legislature is controlled by Republicans but the Congressional delegation is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. And if Democrats win the special election now being held in Norwood's district, Democrats will be the majority in that congressional delegation!

To write off a state simply means we are agreeing with Zell Miller's argument, that Democrats are "A national party no more!"
sorry but Democrats disproved that argument in the last election. And whenever southern Democrats like Gene Taylor and Bill Nelson speak out against Republicans in Congress, it only helps our cause in the next election.

One of the good things about our current system is that most states hold the Republican and Democratic Presidential primaries on the same day! this gives state legislatures more incentive to increase their influence in both parties, while weakening the power of single party machines.

I was extremely unhappy with Congressional Democrats in 1998 when they voted with Republicans to pass the Millennium Copyright act, and when Clinton signed it into law! But if I had chosen to simply stop voting, that would have been just as stupid as bitterly giving up just because some view Georgia as a "Republican state".

I have already made the case for why I think regional primaries are a good idea, and how they could be alternated so that a different region could go first with each passing election.

[NMDemDist2]

2. that damned Carter!

there he goes making sense again!

:rofl:

[goclark]

13. Wow! Go Carter ~ make sense and yet people don't hear

because it is RIGHT!

IOWA should never have as much power as it does.

I love the Region idea but guess what, it won't fly.

IOWA was selected because of its strong middle of the road ideas, multicultural population and because it "looks like America." :sarcasm:

[qdemn7]

4. Well I guess

But why not have a "Super Primary Day"? In other words, pick one day, a Saturday, and EVERY primary / caucus is held that one day.

[w4rma]

7. That is the worst option. They are staggered to help give candidates with lower funds a chance. (nt)

[qdemn7]

9. Well I disagree

Loss of the Iowa / NH primaries have done more than one candidate in.

[mikelgb]

10. bullshit

when has this ever happened?

[kurtyboy]

5. I made this proposal a couple of years ago

Based on 2004 Delegate allocations (2162 needed for nomination)

WEEK ONE, January 29th, 2008—3EV states & territories. (Major Geographic diversity, 6% of Delegates on the line) Alaska RED (18), American Samoa NoEV (6), Delaware BLUE (23), Democrats Abroad NoEV (9), Dist. of Columbia BLUE (39), Guam NoEV (5), Montana RED (21), North Dakota RED (22), Puerto Rico NoEV (57), South Dakota RED (22), Vermont BLUE (27), Virgin Islands NoEV (6), Wyoming RED (19)---Total delegates at stake: 269 (6%)

WEEK TWO, February 5th, 2008—4EV States. Idaho RED (23), Hawaii BLUE (29) Maine BLUE (35), New Hampshire BLUE (27), Rhode Island BLUE (32)---Total delegates at stake: 146 (3%)

WEEK THREE, February 12th, 2008—5EV States. Nebraska RED (31), Nevada RED (32), New Mexico RED (37), Utah RED (29), West Virginia RED (39)---Total delegates at stake: 168 (4%)

WEEK FOUR, February 19th, 2008—6EV States. Arkansas RED (47), Mississippi RED (41), Kansas RED (41)---Total delegates at stake: 129 (3%)

WEEK FIVE, February 26th, 2008—7EV States. Connecticut BLUE (62), Iowa RED (57), Oklahoma RED (47), Oregon BLUE (59)---Total delegates at stake: 225 (5%)

WEEK SIX, March 4th, 2008—8EV States. Kentucky RED (57), South Carolina RED (55)---Total delegates at stake: 112 (3%)

WEEK SEVEN, March 11th, 2008—9EV States. Alabama RED (62), Colorado RED (63), Louisiana RED (72)---Total delegates at stake: 197 (5%)

WEEK SEVEN, March 18th, 2008—10EV States. Arizona RED (64), Maryland BLUE (99), Minnesota BLUE (86), Wisconsin BLUE (87)---Total delegates at stake: 336 (8%)

WEEK NINE, March 25th, 2008—11EV States. Indiana RED (81), Missouri RED (88), Tennessee RED (85), Washington BLUE (95)---Total delegates at stake: 349 (8%)

WEEK TEN—April 1st, 2008—12EV State. Massachusetts BLUE (121), Total delegates at stake: 121 (3%)

WEEK ELEVEN, April 8th, 2008—13 EV State. Virginia RED (98)---Total delegates at stake: 98 (2%) This would be the first week that a nomination could conceivably be clinched—it is very unlikely in this distributed scenario, however...

WEEK TWELVE, April 15th, 2008—15EV States. Georgia RED (101), North Carolina RED (107), New Jersey BLUE (128)---Total delegates at stake: 336 (8%)

WEEK THIRTEEN, April 22nd, 2008—17EV State. Michigan BLUE (155)---Total delegates at stake: 155 (3%)

WEEK FOURTEEN, April 29th, 2008—20EV State. Ohio RED (159)---Total delegates at stake: 159 (4%)

WEEK FIFTEEN, May 6th, 2008—21EV States. Illinois BLUE (186), Pennsylvania BLUE (178)---Total delegates at stake: 314 (8%)

WEEK SIXTEEN, May 13th, 2008—27EV State. Florida RED (201)---Total delegates at stake: 201 (5%)

WEEK SEVENTEEN, May 20th, 2008—31EV State. New York BLUE (284)---Total delegates at stake: 284 (7%)

WEEK EIGHTEEN, May 27th, 2008—34EV State. Texas RED (232)---Total delegates at stake: 232 (5%)

WEEK NINETEEN, June 3rd, 2008—55EV State. California BLUE (441)---Total delegates at stake: 441 (10%)

If this was started the last week of January, It would wrap up by the first week of June--perfect, if you ask me. Going at things this way assures that small states get their voice early (and perhaps for the only time), and bigger states get to do the heavy lifting after enduring a lot of jockeying by candidates.

There is a fairly even distribution of red to blue states throughout—but there are a few weeks (3,4,6,7) where it is all red, even though multiple states are represented. This plays into our party’s hand—the press will emphasize the importance of appealing to the red-state voters, and any candidate finding success will have gone through the crucible—AND will have cemented a base in those red states, because of the emphasis.

The big drawback is that a huge amount of resources are expended by viable candidates over an extended primary--the very thing the DNC was trying to avoid in this latest run. But ask yourself--What did an early, obvious nominee gain for us this time? (BTW, I was a Kerry supporter starting in Sept 2003...)

Check out how each week has a very broad geographic (and presumably social) spread--this can only be a good thing. I can't see how a nominee would be chosen before the last eight weeks....And note the early attention to RED states.....Perhaps the Nominee would be extra-strong in the ensuing race with the GOP.

Post your thoughts……..

Thanks

Kurt

[maxsolomon]

6. why not let the WEST COAST go first?

from our perspective, the rest of the country is wound a little tight.

i'm talking to YOU, bible belt.

[calimary]

11. I'd kinda like California to go first. They sure like our money out here

well enough. About time we got a chance to weigh-in and help make the decisions. Besides, if that had happened last time, we might now be enjoying a Howard Dean presidency. And think how much lower the death toll in Iraq would have been. He would have stopped the war.

[xxqqqzme]

17. Howard even alluded to that @ the

state convention in '05. If only California had been first, then that big, hearty Dean laugh.

He got so screwn.....we got so screwn.

And yes, we all got tired of being treated like an ATM in '04. It was ridiculous.

[ecstatic]

12. I agree. They destroyed 2004. Don't want them doing it again nt

[central scrutinizer]

14. Why should two small, rural, mostly white states

wield so much power? It has never made sense to me why so much weight is placed on Iowa and New Hampshire. The press is so desperate for something beyond opinion polls, that the first real numbers are blown out of proportion.

[tritsofme]

15. Why the east coast?

Seems like a generally expensive media market for an upstart presidential candidate, like oh say Jimmy Carter, to start a presidential campaign...

[The Sushi Bandit]

16. HAWAI'I should go FIRST

cause we are the 50th state
and 6 time zones away from NY
and we have 6 islands to go to
and our official language is Hawaiian (besides english)
and we are the only state where our monarchy was overthrown by an american coup
and native Hawaiians do not have rights like native americans
and we have Aloha


oh, and Kucinich got over 50% of the vote in Maui County during the last primary!

[noel adamson]

18. What about a National Primary Day?

That would not cede very much of the states autonomy to the federal government and it would give them all a more equal voice in federal level matters. I think it would shorten the race considerably and could be designed to allow enough time for voter education on candidates.

As for education on candidates and money spent to buy this or that office, that is a tough one due to the corporate consolidation of media ownership into a propaganda machine and it's high cost, which is expected to be recouped by gains in control of the government. Interference with gaining actual knowledge and insight into the candidates and issues costs a lot; brainwashing is an artform requiring time and effort. The figures we have heard bandied about, $100,000 in campaign bucks to purchase the presidency and $40 million for a senatorship, also do not include other behind the scenes costs involved in more overt vote rigging such as creating crooked voting machine companies and getting them sanctioned and executive actions or legislation to disenfranchise segments of the population.

Considering the dull witted idiot prince we have on the throne now we might consider also establishing a civil service test to be passed prior to a person's entering a race.

[noel adamson]

19. deleted...duplicated

[depakid]

20. He's absolutely right

It's insane that a mariginally significant state using 19th Century procedures has so much impact on the nomination.

[David Zephyr]

22. Non-Starter. The West is fed up with the whole East Coast monopoly on primaries.

That day of privilege is over. Like it or not, it's over.

The whole North vs. South cultural mental grip that still hold 1/2 of Americans in its jaws is completely irrelevant to the rest of the nation.

The "North" is really the Northeast and the "South" is really the Southeast.

Power and population is shifting West. The only ones that haven't noticed are in Washington, D.C. and Atlanta.

Jimmy Carter, God love him, is still living in that obsolete culture-grip. It's over.

[Thor_MN]

23. How about going in order of Taxes Paid/Benefits Received?

Donor states, those paying more federal taxes than they receive back go first.

[razzleberry]

26. how about... divide by voters, not states ?

everything by mail.

partison voters must register.
4/5/6 rounds, every primary state votes on same days.

divide voters into pools, that vote-by-mail in different rounds
use some randon numbers, to assign voters to pools,
perhaps the last digit of social sec. number.

staggerd voting would allow dud candidates to quit,
concentrating donation and media attention on potential
winners in the later rounds