Will: Messy, But Not a Mess - George F. Will

The always-evolving nomination process provides ample time and challenges to compel candidates to reveal their characters and skills.

From the magazine issue dated Nov 5, 2007

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Someone urging a "bold," "decisive," "comprehensive" solution to this or that problem tries to dispel doubts by blithely saying, "Hey, what is the worst that could happen?" If, hearing that, you think to yourself, "Oh, you have no idea," you probably wisely flinch from a federal "solution" to the "problem" of the admittedly messy system of choosing presidential nominees.

Many states that think their interests are being slighted think other states are behaving badly—meaning self-interestedly—by holding early primaries. The entire process is untidy, as freedom often is, and the tidy-minded are threatening to have the federal government fix it.

Congress, they say, should divide the nation into four regions that vote in monthly intervals, with the order of voting rotating every four years. Or Congress should spread the voting over 10 two-week intervals, starting with clusters of small states, with the largest states voting last. Or something.

But all such federal solutions might be unconstitutional. Not necessarily, said Richard Hasen of the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles in recent testimony to a Senate committee. But probably, said William Mayer, professor of political science at Northeastern University, also testifying.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the time, place and manner of congressional elections. But regarding presidential elections, the Constitution gives Congress only the power to set the time for choosing presidential electors, leaving the manner of selecting them to state legislatures. On the principle that where the Constitution is silent regarding federal power it is permissive regarding states' powers, some argue that Congress has no power to impose regional primaries on states. Furthermore, some Supreme Court rulings imply that such imposition would violate the parties' First Amendment associational rights.

Hasen, however, notes that Article II gives Congress the power to set a single national date for presidential elections and, Hasen says, that power should extend to setting the time for the nomination of presidential candidates. In 1941, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate congressional primaries as well as general elections. And the court has read the Constitution as allowing Congress to regulate the financing of presidential as well as congressional campaigns, and the power to change the voting age for elections for all federal offices.

Dr. Will raises an interesting point, and his basic argument -- that the current primary system should not be repaired by the federal government is correct. The principal objections to the current system of ad-hoc primary dates come from the parties, who believe the current system incorporates strong incentives to front-load the primaries. On the evidence, this is correct; we may yet have a primary in December 2007, if Wyoming moves its primary to the first Tuesday in January and New Hampshire reacts by moving its forward to maintain its first-in-the-nation tradition. The parties think that this front-loading leads to a process which determines a nominee very early, and gives undue weight to strength in a couple of small states and with fund-raisers. These beliefs also appear correct: it is widely felt that both parties' nominees will be finalized on Feb. 5th, and that Gov. Romney is one of the two leading candidates for the GOP nomination. Gov. Romney is in fact in fourth place in national polls, but is running very well in both Iowa and New Hampshire and has raised a great deal of money.

But if the parties have the problem, so to the solution is in their grasp. The parties, after all, allocate seats to states at their national conventions, and there is no reason why the primary date should not be a factor in that decision. One scheme would allocate seats to states by population, but then apply a multiplier dependent on primary date. So states which held primaries in June would receive their full complement of delegates; states which held primaries in May half their complement; in April, one-quarter; March, one-eighth, and so on. States would then be free to choose their primary dates, balancing numerical weight at the convention against the presumed influence gained by voting early.

I assume that the ultimate upshot of this would be two or three Super Tuesdays, with New Hampshire and perhaps Iowa voting a month before the first of the Super Tuesdays. Smaller states, without many convention delegates to start with, would go early. New Hampshire clearly values delegate count far less than priority, and so it will presumably cheerily sacrifice weight to any extent necessary. Large states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, and so on, have so many delegates that they would all wait until June to hold primaries. I would assume that very few states would voluntarily sacrifice 75% of their delegates or more just to be early, so it seems likely that most states would hold off till June, and a number of small states would vote in May, and only a very few in April or earlier. To maintain its lead, New Hampshire will vote in March or April, maintaining its splendid isolation.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: so cal mike @ 11/12/2007 6:20:46 PM

pecos bill:

you ought to read more of George Will. He has criticized Bush et al for their overextension of the executive power. He is certainly a conservative, but not at all a partisan. Although his championing of Rudy seems to be a conundrum. It will be interesting to see how the next 50 weeks shape that opinion.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: rickmcgeer @ 11/03/2007 4:02:34 PM

Dr. Will raises an interesting point, and his basic argument -- that the current primary system should not be repaired by the federal government is correct. The principal objections to the current system of ad-hoc primary dates come from the parties, who believe the current system incorporates strong incentives to front-load the primaries. On the evidence, this is correct; we may yet have a primary in December 2007, if Wyoming moves its primary to the first Tuesday in January and New Hampshire reacts by moving its forward to maintain its first-in-the-nation tradition. The parties think that this front-loading leads to a process which determines a nominee very early, and gives undue weight to strength in a couple of small states and with fund-raisers. These beliefs also appear correct: it is widely felt that both parties' nominees will be finalized on Feb. 5th, and that Gov. Romney is one of the two leading candidates for the GOP nomination. Gov. Romney is in fact in fourth place in national polls, but is running very well in both Iowa and New Hampshire and has raised a great deal of money.

But if the parties have the problem, so to the solution is in their grasp. The parties, after all, allocate seats to states at their national conventions, and there is no reason why the primary date should not be a factor in that decision. One scheme would allocate seats to states by population, but then apply a multiplier dependent on primary date. So states which held primaries in June would receive their full complement of delegates; states which held primaries in May half their complement; in April, one-quarter; March, one-eighth, and so on. States would then be free to choose their primary dates, balancing numerical weight at the convention against the presumed influence gained by voting early.

I assume that the ultimate upshot of this would be two or three Super Tuesdays, with New Hampshire and perhaps Iowa voting a month before the first of the Super Tuesdays. Smaller states, without many convention delegates to start with, would go early. New Hampshire clearly values delegate count far less than priority, and so it will presumably cheerily sacrifice weight to any extent necessary. Large states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, and so on, have so many delegates that they would all wait until June to hold primaries. I would assume that very few states would voluntarily sacrifice 75% of their delegates or more just to be early, so it seems likely that most states would hold off till June, and a number of small states would vote in May, and only a very few in April or earlier. To maintain its lead, New Hampshire will vote in March or April, maintaining its splendid isolation.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: hoehne1 @ 11/02/2007 3:16:24 PM

Constitution? You mean we still have one? I thought we did away with that! Did someone write up a new one?