A primary solution

As the Democratic Primary Campaign staggers on for another six weeks, there will be much discussion about finding a better way of selecting Presidential candidates (even many in the GOP aren't thrilled with their selection). Granted, after the 2000 Presidential election, there was much discussion about fixing our election system (remember the talk about eliminating the Electoral College?), but nothing really happened. The same is true with the primary system, but there is more precedence for changing the rules there.

Below is my solution, which I have thoroughly vetted in discussions with myself in the 12 hours since I thought of it. Overall, I think the system should allow for candidates to build support over several months and demonstrate that they can organize a campaign. I also think they should be selected by a direct democratic process - none of this "local delegates choosing state delegates" thing. It should also be based on a system that the average American can understand, so I'm modeling it off of the selection mechanisms utilized by such all-America institutions like "Survivor" and "American Idol".

I propose a series of Candidate Selection Days: January 15, February 15, March 15 and April 15. The key to this proposal is the fact that all members of the party can vote during each of these Selection Days, and they can change their vote at any time.

On the first Selection Day, the field is cut to 6 candidates. Those not in the top 6 are given the hook. On the next Selection Day, the field is cut to 3. After the 3rd Selection Day, only two candidates remain so that after the fourth round, there is always a winner. In addition, at any time during the first three Selection Days, if a candidate receives a majority of the votes, the race is over.

Participants would be able to vote (probably via a secure on-line mechanism) at any time starting on Jan 2, and can change their vote at any time leading up to one of the Selection Days, at which point the votes would be locked until the survivors are declared. This would allow support of candidates to be measured in real-time, but would also give deadlines for "lock-in your vote" campaigns.

States would still be allowed to hold primaries -- they could choose any of the four Selection Days. Voters who go to the polling places would have that vote supersede any vote they have registered on-line. This would allow non-tech savvy voters the opportunity to participate. Some states would undoubtedly want to go first, to entice candidates to come to their towns to rally voters, but other states may wait until the 3-to-2 cut because the attention would mean more then. But wait until the last Selection Day and ... oops, one candidate might get 53% in the third round and the 4th round is eliminated as unnecessary. Or, it might be the deciding day.

But if you can always vote on-line, why would the states still hold elections? Because there will be inertia from much of the population that wants to still go to polling places once and be done with it. (Unless they have later regrets and want to switch their vote.)

This is probably not quite feasible yet (and would require validation of party membership to participate to prevent double-voting), it sure beats the current system.

Then again, so would Rochambeau.