How to fix the primaries

I've been thinking about this crazy primary season stuff for a while now and it seems to me that if the primary political parties in this country would agree to agree, we'd be a lot better off. However, that is not the case. They can't agree on when states should vote and which states should vote when, etc. It's a mess in fact. Now, some argue that the small states need to compete with the big states and then others argue that the big states don't want to be left out of the process. Around and around this goes until you have the various states competing with each other, which has brought about this awfully early selection season for candidates. I have an idea how to fix the problem, assuming anybody in the parties would care to listen. It would keep the small states from being overshadowed, plus, it would allow the big states to be part of the process. So, here goes:

First, a few definitions. I define a small state as any state where neither party gives out 50 or more delegates. A medium state is one in which neither party is giving out 100 or more delegates and a large state is one in which one or both parties are giving out 100 or more delegates. Now, with that in mind, here's my recommendations to fix the system.

1. Nobody can have a caucus or primary until the actual year of the election. So, if the election is in 2012, then there can be no primaries or caucuses in 2011. You say that can't happen, but just look at this past cycle. It almost did. Iowa came very close to having a 2007 caucus. That's just nuts so it shouldn't be allowed.

2. Have one state from each region of the country vote in January. This gives everyone an idea of what is going through people's heads around the country and allows for the old (and crazy in my opinion) traditions of Iowa and New Hampshire. Therefore, I'd recommend only 4 states get to vote in January. One from the Northeast, one from the South, one from the Midwest and one from the West. I recommend Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Oregon for no particular reason other than they aren't "large" states.

3. Have all the medium sized states chime in next. This will give them relevance in the process and allow for some momentum changes as well. After the 1st four states, that leaves 15 medium states according to my definition above. Those states should vote from Feb. 1 to March 15. The state can choose whatever day during that span it chooses. They could even decide to have a super Tuesday like event, but I think it would be better to spread it out a bit.

4. Next, the remaining small states (of which there are 21) should get to vote. This keeps their states relevant in the process since the 19 states that would have voted so far could not possibly have decided the outcome even if there were an overwhelming favorite. These votes should only be allowed between the dates of March 16 and April 30. This again provides flexibility for the states and allows the possibility that the calendar could be spread out. At the end of this process, 40 states will have voted and it would be possible for a candidate to have garnered enough delegates to win which is really why the large states are always trying to get in on it earlier, but let's examine this more closely. First, keep in mind that the total delegate counts do change from time to time so all my numbers in the succeeding argument are approximate. To get the democratic nomination, a person must win 2025 total delegates out of 4049. 796 of the total delegates are superdelegates and aren't selected by state primaries and caususes. Therefore, you take those nearly 800 people and add them to the total of the 10 largest delegate states and you get 2683 total delegate remaining at this stage, even after 40 states have voted. This means that it is still impossible for a candidate to have received enough votes to win the nomination if the individual superdelegates have not cast their votes. For the Republican nomination, one must get 1191 or 2380 total delegates. Since the Republicans have fewer superdelegates in their totals (only 123) then there is a greater chance that a candidate could get a majority by the time the large states vote. However, if you take the large state totals of 973 and add them to the 123, you still get 1096 delegates. This total could almost decide the outcome because it totals nearly half the total. Not as large as that of the Democrats which totals more than half, but that is largely due to the lower proportion of superdelegates the Republicans have, which means their process is more democratic overall than the Democratic party process. That's interesting, but not really relevant to anything. So, unless there is some hugely popular candidate, it is unlikely that the large states would be disenfranchised by the process I'm using here. They have enough delegates combined with the superdelegates to almost make the decision themselves without any of the other 40 states even needing to vote. That's why they should go last which brings me to the next step.

5. Large states vote in May. This includes 10 total states and nearly half the total delegates available. These states are California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. These states can vote any time in May or can even do their own super Tuesday, perhaps Mega Tuesday considering the number of delegates available. At any rate, if the superdelegates don't pledge any of their delegates to any candidates, then the large states would most likely have nothing to worry about in regards to being marginalized and we would have a much better chance to see candidates and what they stand for before the process was decided by some early vote by California or the like. This brings me to my last point.

6. Superdelegates should either be eliminated (they are undemocratic) or they should not be allowed to reveal their preferences until the convention. Wow, radical you say? Not so much. By preventing them from revealing their intentions (since they won't be eliminated, let's be real) we make it very possible (although perhaps unlikely, but more likely than the current system) that two competing candidates could get to the convention without the necessary majority. This would actually give the superdelegates a lot of power in making the final decision for their party. Of course, the most likely scenario would be that a candidate would be chosen by the time all 50 states voted.

Note: Just in the interests of full disclosure, Democrats overseas, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands also get to vote in the primary process, but their overall delegate totals are so small (21 for Democrats and 8 for Republicans) that I don't think they would greatly affect the outcome of my above scenario. Therefore, I don't really think I care when they vote as long as it isn't in January.