We Need to Reclaim the Primary Process

[Jim Lane]

45. Rotating regional primaries is a better solution.

The single national primary would just be about who had the initial media coverage and the big money. There'd be no chance for lesser-known candidates to build support, as was done by such candidates as George McGovern, Jimmy Carter (1976), and Barack Obama -- none of whom would have won a single nationwide primary.

I do think it's unfair that, cycle after cycle, the same handful of states have disproportionate influence. The best solution I've seen is the rotating regional primary. For example, in one cycle the first primary might be the six New England states (all voting the same day). A week or two later, it would be a group of states in the Southeast or the Pacific Northwest or wherever. Having neighboring states vote together would make campaigning less expensive. Then, of course, in the next cycle, the order would be changed. If New England went first four years ago, then for this cycle the series might begin in the Midwest.

There would still be a disproportionate influence for the early primaries, but at least it would be spread around.

ETA: I didn't see #38 by question everything before I repeated much of that post -- I do think regional is better than some other basis for grouping because it reduces costs.