The Interregional Plan

On March 16, 2000, Representative Sander Levin (D-MI) introduced federal legislation (HR 4014) create an interregional primary system. Under this plan, the states would be split into six regions, designated by number, and each of those regions would be split into six sub-regions, designated by letter:

• Region 1: (A) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont; (B) Massachusetts; (C) Connecticut, Rhode Island; (D) Delaware, New Jersey; (E) New York; (F) Pennsylvania.

• Region 2: (A) Maryland; (B) West Virginia; (C) Missouri; (D) Indiana; (E) Kentucky; (F) Tennessee.

• Region 3: (A) Ohio; (B) Illinois; (C) Michigan; (D) Wisconsin; (E) Iowa; (F) Minnesota.

• Region 4: (A) Texas; (B) Louisiana; (C) Arkansas, Oklahoma; (D) Colorado; (E) Kansas, Nebraska; (F) Arizona, New Mexico.

• Region 5: (A) Virginia; (B) North Carolina; (C) South Carolina; (D) Florida; (E) Georgia; (F) Mississippi, Alabama.

• Region 6: (A) California; (B) Washington; (C) Oregon; (D) Idaho, Nevada, Utah; (E) Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming; (F) Hawaii, Alaska.

One sub-region from each region would vote on each of six election days. The six election days would be the second Tuesday in March, the first Tuesday in April, the fourth Tuesday in April, the second Tuesday in May, the fourth Tuesday in May, and the second Tuesday in June. Every four years, the order in which the states vote would rotate. (Levin 2000, Brock 2000, 34) Table 19 and Figure 40 show a possible schedule for 2004. Figure 41 and Figure 42 are corresponding political and geographic maps.

Advantages

Since in this system the states vote as an aggregate of sub-regions from each region, it avoids to problem of giving advantage to a particular region. It treats states equally, rotating their positions in the schedule from one quadrennial cycle to the next.

Disadvantages

The intervals between voting days range from two weeks (the 4th Tuesday in April to the 2nd Tuesday in May) to five weeks (1st Tuesday in March to the 1st Tuesday in April). More problematic, however, is the fact that although the Representative Levin’s plan divides the nation into six primaries, the aggregated subregions range from six 6 to ten states, comprising anywhere from 51 to 127 congressional districts. In the case where the “A” sub-regions voted first, candidates would begin the campaign by having to face nearly one-third of the entire electorate of the United States. By eliminating small, early primaries this plan obliterates any possibility of grass roots campaigning. Only the most well-funded candidates would be able to compete with reasonable success in the first regional primary, thus the field would be very quickly narrowed to two or possibly three candidates in each party.

Comparison

Compared to the Interregional Plan, the Graduated Random System allows a much more gradual ramp-up in the extent and expense of campaigning. Grass roots campaigns with shoestring budgets would be competitive through several election intervals, giving them time to gather momentum. This opens the process to the widest field of candidates, giving the American voter more choices and a longer time to deliberate.