Cherry-Picking Competitive States

Another consideration is how competitive a given state is likely to be in the next general election. Rather than randomly choosing among states stratified only by size, why not stratify first by competitiveness, then by size within categories of competitiveness? For example, say there were 12 states in which the Democrat-Republican vote split in the last presidential election was in the 45% to 55% range. Therefore, start the primary season with those 12 states, since they would provide a good test of “fitness,” sequencing them by size over the first two or three intervals of the process, with the smallest states going first. The next batch might be states that scored in the 35-45 and 55-65 range, then (appropriate for this triage approach) the no-chance and sure-thing states last. Would not such a two-stage stratification improve the scheme by adding greater informational value to voters, contributor, media, and party kingmakers?

Although an interesting idea, this approach is problematic for several reasons. First of all, how well one can predict the competitiveness of a state based on the previous election? In 1960 and 1968, would California have gone to a Republican nominee other than Richard Nixon, or would it have gone to the Democrat instead? In 1980, would California have gone to a Republican nominee other than Ronald Reagan, or would it have gone to Jimmy Carter instead? Also, competitiveness is relative, not absolute. In landslides elections such as 1964, 1972, and 1984, competitiveness might have to be judged by a lower standard. In each of these cases, however, how relevant was the outcome to the next election? Electoral outcomes are determined by individuality of the candidates as well by the demographics of the electorate.

Cherry-picking battleground states over safe states would tend to favor middle-of-the-road candidates over those appealing to the extreme wings of their parties. However, would this necessarily result in the nomination of the candidate most fit to represent the party in the general election? In 1980, Ronald Reagan, who was well to the right of George Bush, won the Republican nomination and went on to handily unseat Jimmy Carter, the Democratic incumbent. It is impossible to say whether Bush would have done even better against Carter, but it is a reasonable proposition that he would not have.

The finally objection is, would it be fair to the people of Utah to force them to vote last because they heavily favor Republicans, or to penalize the District of Columbia for always voting for Democrats? Not only that, but given that the most likely avenue to adoption of a presidential primary system is through the national party conventions, the idea of penalizing the states with the strongest party organizations is probably a political poison pill.