World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System

Article Id: WHEBN0014717542
Reproduction Date:

Title: Graduated Random Presidential Primary System  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Interregional Primary Plan, United States presidential primary, New Hampshire primary, American Plan, United States presidential primaries
Collection: Electoral Reform in the United States, United States Presidential Primaries
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System

The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, also known as the California Plan or the American Plan, is a proposed system to reform the conduct of United States Presidential primary campaigns. Under this system the campaign period would be broken into ten two-week periods in which an escalating number of electoral votes would be contested. It was developed by aerospace engineer and political scientist Thomas Gangale in 2003 in response to the trend toward front-loading in recent primary campaigns and the influence wielded by Iowa and New Hampshire, which traditionally hold their nominating events before any other state.

Contents

  • The Plan 1
  • Criticism and support 2
  • See also 3
  • Notes 4
  • References 5

The Plan

Under the American Plan, the primary season would be divided into ten two-week periods. In the first period, any combination of randomly selected states (or territories) could vote, as long as their combined number of electoral votes added up to eight. The territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, which do not hold electoral votes but do send delegates to nominating conventions, are counted as holding one electoral vote each, as would the District of Columbia. (The 23rd Amendment states that the District may send electors to the Electoral College, as long as it does not have more votes than the least populous state.) In each subsequent period, the number of votes contested would increase by eight. As a result, the early campaign would feature contests in several small states or a few larger ones, becoming more and more demanding as time went by. The mathematical expression is:

10
Σ 8n
n=1

Because of the large gap between populations of the most populous states, California - the state with the highest population - could vote no earlier than the seventh period, while the second most populous state, Texas, as well as New York and Florida, the third and fourth largest, could vote in the fourth. California, unlike all other states, would always have to hold its primary toward the end of the campaign. To remedy this, the later stages of the California Plan primary are staggered. The seventh period (8x7) is moved before the fourth (8x4), the eighth (8x8) before the fifth (8x5), and the ninth (8x9) before the sixth (8x6).[1]

Criticism and support

Critics of the American Plan point out that its random selection system could lead to high travel costs for candidates (as opposed to regional plans) due to random selection of primary states. John Nichols mentioned in The Nation[2] that these costs are minimal compared to the costs of running full TV, radio, print and online media campaigns in several states simultaneously, as would happen under the large regional plans. However, such advertising buys would also be necessary under the American Plan in later rounds.

The plan is supported by:

The American Plan was the only systematic reform cited in the December 2005 Report of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling[8] to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean:

"In considering the options for 2012 the Commission encourages the Party to think boldly, including for example, [Rules and Bylaws Committee] consideration of the proposal known as the American Plan which would spread the calendar of contests across ten intervals of time and randomly select the order of the states from one presidential election cycle to the next."

See also

Reform plans

Notes

  1. ^ a b FairVote - FairVote's Favorite - The American Plan
  2. ^ online, January 3, 2008The NationJohn Nichols, "The Mad-Money Primary Race";
  3. ^ January 2006 Resolutions - The California Democratic Party
  4. ^ FairVote - California Resolution
  5. ^ Office of the Secretary of the State
  6. ^ http://www.ops-alaska.com/
  7. ^ FairVote - YDA endorses American Plan
  8. ^ RBC Report to Credentials Comm

References

  • DiClerico, Robert E.; Allan S. Hammock (2006). Points of View: Readings in American Government. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-310681-6.
  • Gangale, Thomas (January 2004). "The California Plan: A 21st Century Method for Nominating Presidential Candidates". PS: Political Science and Politics. 37 (1): 81-87.
  • Gangale, Thomas (2007). From the Primaries to the Polls: How to Repair America's Broken Presidential Nomination Process. Praeger. ISBN 0-313-34835-9.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.