A Window of Opportunity

Coordinated state legislation constitutes a monumental collective action problem (more than 50 state and territorial legislatures, most of them bicameral). While many federal bills have been introduced, all have died in committee. Judicial intervention in a political process tends to be unpalatable, yet might provide the needed impetus for a political solution. Of the possible paths to implementation, the most likely would seem to be the one that nearly succeeded in 2000: national party rules.

Conventional wisdom might suggest that instituting such a sweeping reform would be a leap of faith that the two major parties must take together. However, an equally tenable counterargument is that the substantial advantages of such a reform would accrue asymmetrically to the political party that had the vision to implement it first, and that the other party would be forced to quickly follow suit. The historical precedent for this is the McGovern reforms. The Democratic Party leaped first, implementing them for the 1972 campaign, and even though Richard Nixon trounced George McGovern in the general election of that year, the Republican Party adopted many of the same reforms in time for the 1976 presidential primaries.

The period from the summer of 2003 to the summer of 2004 represents a new window of opportunity. As Senator Robert Packwood stated in 1972 in reference to reforming the presidential primary system: “It’s like the electoral college. You’ll see a flurry of activity while the thing is going on. By next year it’s 3 1/2 years from the next election and people say, ‘Let’s worry about it later (Congressional Quarterly 1972).’” Both Senator Packwood’s observation and the experience of the Brock Commission strongly support the contention that now is the time to begin the next effort to reform the presidential nominating process, or else wait four more years.

If the Republican Party were to adopt the American Plan at its national convention in 2004, this is what could happen in 2008. The Democrats, operating under the front-loaded schedule, determine their nominee in February. But no race means no news, and he or she immediately drops off the radar screen. Meanwhile, a half-dozen Republican candidates wage vigorous campaigns for months. By June, the contest boils down to two candidates, both of whom have built massive name recognition, while the Democratic nominee has languished in obscurity. Republican issues have been hotly debated and finely honed, and are at the forefront of the electorate’s consciousness, while few have any idea of the Democratic nominee’s vision for the nation. The Republican nominee has been fully vetted; the Democratic nominee has merely proven to be a masterful fundraiser, but may turn out to be a mediocre campaigner. This is a prescription for Republican victory in November. Of course, were the Democrats to be the first party to adopt this reform, the reverse scenario would apply.