Conclusion

The unique and innovative design of the American Plan achieves the goal of preserving “retail politicking” in small, early venues without imposing an unacceptable handicap on large-population states. For instance, Virginia could vote as early as the second of 10 intervals, whereas under the Delaware Plan it would always vote in the very last round. In the American Plan, the four most populous states are eligible to vote in the fourth of 10 rounds. Since only 11% of the American electorate votes in the first three intervals, these large states can figure early enough in the delegate selection process to have as meaningful an input as any state. In fact, the American Plan treats all states with surprising even-handedness; on average, the smallest states are scheduled at random to vote after 32.5% of the country has voted, but for the largest states this figure is no higher than 45.5%, a spread of only 13 points.

The Vanishing Voter Project at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy (Harvard University) concluded that reform proposals, when it comes to the nominating process, should be judged on the basis of their ability to foster:

1. A shorter campaign.

2. A nominating process that remains competitive for a longer period of time in order to give the public a greater opportunity to engage the campaign and to become informed about the candidates.

3. A briefer interval between the decisive contests and the conventions in order to help people sustain the levels of public engagement and information they had attained when the nominating campaign peaked.

4. A system that increases the likelihood that voters in all states will have an effective voice in the selection of the nominees. (Patterson 2000)

As originally designed, the Graduated Random Presidential Primary System satisfies three of these criteria. In order to achieve a shorter campaign schedule, it would only be necessary to redefine the length of the voting intervals. For instance, using ten-day intervals versus 14-day intervals, the Graduated Random schedule could begin on March 1 and end on June 8.

The original algorithm typically selects two small states or one larger state (a total of eight congressional districts) for the first interval, but can occasionally select more and smaller venues. If desirable, the algorithm could be modified to ensure no more than two states in the first interval.

Although the Graduated Random System was developed before most other plans for reforming the presidential primary system, it includes the best features of these later systems. Like the Regional Lottery System (Center for Governmental Studies 2001, 22) and the Smith Plan (Hirsch 2000; Smith 2000), it selects the order of states and territories in the schedule via a random process, thus all states are treated fairly. Also, as with the Smith Plan, and to a lesser extent the Regional Lottery System, the Graduated Random System distributes the dates of individual primaries and caucuses so that they are not bunched together on the first Tuesday of each month. Like the Delaware Plan, the Graduated Random System structures the overall primary schedule so that the number of delegates at stake starts out small and gradually increases, allowing a greater number of campaigns to begin at the grass roots level and build momentum.

If the quest for the presidency can be compared to climbing a mountain, then the time charts comparing the proposed reforms to the presidential primary schedule clearly show that the Graduated Random System results in an initial slope that is gentle enough for many candidates to ascend at first, but one that becomes steeper over the ensuing weeks, ensuring that only the fittest candidates succeed in scaling the final summit. The slope of the Graduated Random System is smooth and graceful, not jerky and discontinuous. No other proposed system of reform approaches its mathematical elegance.

The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or American Plan, is at the same time both random in composition, yet predictable in structure. The composition of the schedule favors no one state or region. Meanwhile, the structure of the system enables the widest possible political debate in the early stages of the presidential primary schedule, yet provides a gradual winnowing process as the price of staying in the game increases with each successive round. A successful candidate need not start out well-heeled, but will cross the finish line fully vetted. He or she need not hail from any particular region of the country, but must appeal to the whole nation. America deserves such a president, and America deserves a rational, systematic primary process for the 21st century.