(I come at this from about the opposite direction, but I think it will make for some good discussion. – promoted by blogswarm)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.  I’m sure many folks here will disagree.

Several months ago, I opposed moving California’s Presidential primary to February 5th because (a) there’s no guarantee it will give us major influence in picking the next President, (b) it will front-load the primary schedule so that lesser-funded candidates have no chance in hell, and (c) California would be a “magnet” for other states to have an early primary – creating a primary season that starts early and ends early.  Now Florida has snuck ahead by pushing its primary to January 29th, despite sanctions from both national parties that the Sunshine State will get fewer delegates at the national conventions.  South Carolina is furious because Florida has jinxed its game, and now New Hampshire plans to exercise its God-given right of “always being first” by pushing its primary back to December – almost a year before the general election.  While it’s easy to get mad at Florida for crashing the party (and who doesn’t hate Florida when it comes to Presidential elections?), California and 24 other states have no one to blame but themselves for this fiasco when they pushed up their primaries to February 5th.

There are many good reasons for giving California more of a voice in selecting our presidential nominees.  We’re the largest and most diverse state in the union, but because we’re a solid blue state we are pretty much irrelevant in the general election.  Presidential candidates love coming here to raise gobs of money, but they don’t talk to voters because the nominees are always decided by the time California’s primary comes around. 

But when California unilaterally pushed its primary to February 5th, a lot of other states had the same idea.  As of this writing, California will vote on the same day as New York, Texas, Illinois, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Missouri, Delaware, Arizona, Michigan, Tennessee, Utah, Rhode Island, Georgia, Connecticut, Kansas, Alaska, Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, Arkansas, Alabama and New Jersey – just three weeks after the Iowa caucus and two weeks after the New Hampshire primary.  Forget the “Super Tuesday” primary – now it’s “Super Duper Tuesday on Steroids.”

Why February 5th?  Because the Democratic National Committee, in a feeble attempt to “control” a chaotic primary schedule where every state wants to have the most impact, set up some ground rules about when states could have their primary.  Iowa will have its first caucus on January 14th, followed by Nevada on January 19th.  New Hampshire will still have its first-in-the-nation primary on January 22nd, followed by South Carolina on January 29th.  No other state could go before February 5th – or else get penalized with fewer delegates at the national convention.

But along came Florida who (like 25 other states) had decided to move up its primary to February 5th.  Sensing that it will get drowned into oblivion by sharing its primary on such a crowded day, the Florida legislature unanimously voted this week to push up its primary a week earlier to January 29th – on the same day as South Carolina.  Just like California, Florida has argued that a big, diverse state should have more of an impact in picking the presidential nominees.

And getting fewer delegates at the convention is a small price to pay, they concluded.  “At the convention, people get invited to a big party where they drop a balloon and wear funny hats,” said Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio. “But they don’t have any role to play.”  Which is true – delegates at the National Convention don’t get to decide who is the party nominee.  The states who have the earliest primary get that privilege.

Naturally, South Carolina went berserk.  “South Carolina will name a date that keeps us first in the South,” said state Republican chairman Katon Dawson. “It could be as early as Halloween, and our own version of trick-or-treat, if we have to.”  Meanwhile, New Hampshire has a law that requires it to be the first primary in the nation – and its Secretary of State has said that they will move up their primary before any other state, going back into 2007 if necessary.  At this rate, the nomination could decided by Christmas and California’s February 5th primary will be irrelevant.

None of which is healthy for democracy.  We’re still more than eighteen months away from the next Presidential election, and already candidates are raising obscene amounts of money – while those who can’t compete are dropping out.  Ending the primary season by February 5th is also not good, because it then leaves a nine-month period before the general election.  Voters get bombarded with information, and eventually lose interest.

In contrast, France just had their presidential election – with only a two-week gap between the first and second rounds (i.e., primary and general elections.)  Having a smaller window of time makes the general election more interesting for the casual voter.  While we bemoan low voter turnout in this country, France had an 86% turnout in a race that was decided by only six points.

Some have argued that if all the states are moving up their primary to February 5th, why not simply have a “national primary” so no state gets an unfair advantage?  But if so, why does a national primary have to be nine months before the general election?  If we’re going to have a national primary, it makes more sense to shorten the amount of campaigning and bring it closer to the general.

But hasn’t California already benefited from an early primary?  After all, practically every candidate was at the state Democratic Convention two weeks ago – highlighting the importance that our state will have in picking the next President.  Not really.  In 2003, when we had a later presidential primary, all the major candidates came to Convention anyway.  I doubt the candidates would have ignored the convention if we hadn’t moved up our primary.

Which brings us back to Florida’s mischief.  Twenty-five states – including California – have sabotaged themselves in a vain effort to get “more attention” in the presidential primary by moving up earlier that they will end up getting no attention.  So Florida got clever and decided to move it up sooner.  It’s easy for everyone to get mad at Florida, but let’s get real – they figured out what a sham this system is, and decided to game it to their own advantage.

It didn’t use to be that way.  In the 1970’s (and even the 1980’s), presidential primaries were more drawn out so that a grass-roots candidate with low name-recognition could steadily pick up support and win the nomination.  Jimmy Carter would have never won the Democratic presidential nomination under today’s front-loaded schedule.  As I’ve argued before, we’re never going to clear up this madness until the national parties set a schedule of state primaries that is drawn out, fair to big and small states alike, and allows everyone to have a meaningful impact in the nomination.

There is a potential solution – the American Plan.  Created by S.F. State Professor Tom Gangale, the American Plan would stretch out the primary schedule over several months, with a randomly selected number of states holding primaries every two weeks.  This would allow a marathon – rather than a sprint – of presidential primaries that avoids front-loading and gives every state a fair shot.

The Democratic Party likes the American Plan, and is looking at implementing it for the 2012 election cycle.  That’s great, but I think it should be put into effect for 2008.  But when talking to members of the D.N.C., they told me that trying to use it for the upcoming cycle “could cause pandemonium” as states will not be prepared for a completely new primary election schedule on such short notice.

But it sounds like we have chaos already.  And Florida’s just proven how insanely broken the system is.

Send feedback to [email protected]

(Another no to the 2/5 primary. I think we’re running about even. By the by, welcome to Paul, who does a great job at Beyond Chron, one of the best sites on SF politics around. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily.

As Ben Franklin said, the definition of “insanity” is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Once again, California politicians complain that our state never gets to choose a presidential nominee because the race is over by the time it gets here. Now the state legislature wants to push up our presidential primary even earlier than before – in the vain hope that we will decide from a wide-open field in 2008. But other states have the same idea too and we may end up having a national primary on February 5th – only one week after New Hampshire. While a February primary could be seen as a boon for progressive activists, the subsequent low-turnout June election poses grave risks, particularly given the attempt to qualify a statewide initiative to ban rent control.

The February primary is a bad idea for many reasons, and California should not fuel the madness. First, it is unlikely that California will get to decide the outcome of the presidential race, even with an earlier primary. Second, a front-loaded schedule puts insurgent candidates at an insurmountable disadvantage, virtually guaranteeing that the establishment candidate (i.e., Hillary Clinton) will win. Third, pushing the whole primary schedule further back forces candidates to campaign even earlier and raise even more money. Fourth, having two California primaries (the presidential one in February and the legislative one in June) will help right-wing propositions sail through in a low-turnout election.

It’s unfair that Iowa and New Hampshire — two rural, predominantly white states — have an unreasonable say in picking presidential nominees and that California repeatedly gets left out. But 47 other states feel the same way, and we’re not the only ones who want to move up our primary to “maximize” influence. If California moves its primary to February 5th, it will join Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey – and probably Florida and Michigan as well. To say that we will somehow have comparable influence in selecting the nominee as Iowa or New Hampshire is absurd, because candidates will have to split their time between here and eight states (some on the East Coast) within the short span of one week.

California has repeatedly pushed up its primary in the past – and it still didn’t maximize our influence. In 1996, the state legislature moved it from June to March 26th – but with Bob Dole having beaten back Pat Buchanan’s challenge a few weeks earlier, the race was effectively over by then. So in 2000, the legislature pushed it back to March 7th – putting California on the same day as Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. The result? Al Gore already had the Democratic nomination in the bag, and George Bush finished off John McCain with an avalanche of campaign spending. In 2004, we saw the same result happen again.

The effect of moving California’s primary is that it so front-loads the schedule that under-funded insurgent candidates have no chance of winning, and the establishment candidate quickly gets the nomination. In 2000, John McCain upset George Bush in New Hampshire, only to get overwhelmed within a month in other states. In 2004, John Kerry’s early victories in Iowa and New Hampshire allowed him to solidify his establishment status, and he went on to win the nomination without much trouble.

The problem isn’t that Iowa and New Hampshire go first – it’s that so many states follow them right afterwards. If an insurgent wins one of the early states, they simply get overwhelmed later due to lack of resources. If an establishment type wins an early state, the insurgents have no chance later on because it gives the front-runner an insurmountable lead. Either way, the establishment candidate always wins.

In 2004, Howard Dean pursued the only strategy that an insurgent candidate could be expected to do. Because Iowa and New Hampshire were immediately followed by a series of front-loaded primaries, he spent resources ahead of time in Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma — which had primaries one week later. It could have worked, if Dean had won Iowa. But with his third-place finish in the Hawkeye State and his infamous “scream,” Howard Dean had no money, no time and no momentum left to score a comeback and win the nomination.

A front-loaded primary season effectively ends the nomination process in early February. It’s insane that in January 2007 we already have so many declared presidential candidates, but they’re just facing reality – the nomination will be over in a year. That doesn’t give much time to raise gobs of money to spend it at lightning speed when the front-loaded primaries start hitting next January. No campaign manager would tell a candidate not to declare right away.

It didn’t use to be that way. In 1992, the primary schedule was more drawn out and allowed more states to have a say in the Democratic nomination. After Tom Harkin won the Iowa caucus on February 10th, Paul Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary on February 18th. Bob Kerrey won South Dakota on February 25th and Jerry Brown won Colorado on March 3rd. Bill Clinton started racking up victories in the coming weeks, but on March 24th Brown stalled his momentum by winning Connecticut. Finally, Clinton sewed up the nomination on April 7th with the New York primary.

Of course, California didn’t have a say in 1992 because its primary was in June. But a two-month marathon – rather than a one-week sprint -allows for a more dynamic process where more states can have their vote really matter. A longer nomination process allows candidates to hone their skills and get battle-tested. It would also generate more interest and excitement among voters.

But why does New Hampshire always get to be first? New Hampshire law requires that its presidential primary be first-in-the-nation. As other states try to get an early seat in the action, New Hampshire has pushed its primary further and further back — from March 12th in 1968 to February 1st in 2000 to January 27th in 2004. That’s not healthy for anyone because it forces campaigns to start earlier.

I think it’s better to have a state like New Hampshire go first. New Hampshire is small enough that a presidential candidate can run a grass-roots campaign and talk to voters – rather than raise tons of money and throw it on commercials. New Hampshire allows insurgent candidates to get their foot in the door and expand the scope of debate. The problem is that they later get clobbered when the nomination shifts to a media war of mega-state after front-loaded mega-state.

So what’s the solution? The national parties should sit down with their state parties and forge a compromise. They probably can’t do anything about Iowa and New Hampshire – but they can prevent the leap-frogging and front-loading that happens every time. Establish a firm schedule stretching out over several months, so that each week you only have one or two state primaries.

This will allow each state to have a real voice in the nomination process. States that are unfortunately placed last will get a higher placement four years later, and states like California that have always been shut out would get a priority placement. It won’t be perfect, but it will be better than what we have now.

Furthermore, California progressives should be alarmed at how a presidential primary in February could have a derivative effect on state politics. Speaker Fabian Nunez wants to place a proposition in February to relax the state’s term-limits law (a good idea), followed by a legislative primary in June. But this will pose the danger of a low voter turnout in June, giving the right-wing an opening to pass dangerous propositions.

Already, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is gathering signatures to place a “son” of Proposition 90 on the ballot – probably for June 2008. While its language makes it sound less extreme than Prop 90, it is actually worse because of its retroactive effect and would eliminate rent control in California. The religious right will also try to place an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot – it would also likely be voted on in June 2008.

California’s a very blue state – but past elections have shown that a low turnout can pass right-wing propositions. In March 2000, California had a low statewide turnout — the average voter’s age was fifty – and the state passed a legislative ban on gay marriage (Proposition 22) and a drastic juvenile justice initiative (Proposition 21) by healthy margins.

The same thing could happen again – if the state legislature foolishly pushes the presidential primary up to February, in the virtually nonexistent hope that California will better influence the next presidential nominee.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth actively supported Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Send feedback to [email protected]