Why can’t this work?
Why can’t the Dems pick three states to vet who they will all stand behind as our next president? As a way to be honest and serve the country/
I think it goes like this:
The Democrats hold a press conference at which Elizabeth Warrnen, Pete Buttigieg Gavin Newsom, Amy Klobuchar and whomever else thinks they might want to be president attends. President Biden is there too and Barack Obama, serving as host.
Obama offers some blah about how unprecedented these time are and how great Joe is. Joe offers some blah blah about how he knows he could go four more years but as American’s doubt his age, not his record, he will commit a final act of public service and patriotism and not run. Kamlea says som blah blah about the honor it has been to be VP and then says:
We will now adopt the Munter plan for making this election one that serves the country, not our ego.
All those Dems interested in being President will have the same budget and thirty days in each of the following states, Colorado, Ohio, and Florida. We will have weekly town halls, detabates and so forth. The top five go from Colorado to Ohio. The top three from Ohio to Florida. If it is close to call in Florida wel have a week run off in Pennsylvania.
After we find out who Deocrats in these states want to get behind, we will all work night and day to elect that candidate.
There are some details to work out, like maybe it should only be two states for fifteen days each, but you get the idea. First be honest about the situation. Second vet a candidate thought the people. Third, everyone gets behind the winner.
If you use purple states to vet you have a better chance of winning them in the general. If you make a point of going to the red parts of those states you stay on offense. If you work as a team you almost assuredly win no matter who turns out to be the person these “primaries” pick.
Mostly, you have the invaluable campaign points of having agreed to put country over party, service over ambition, and honesty over pretense.
interesting - I agree that the primary system is terrible. Your idea suggests yet another model of multi-state primaries. Start out with n geographically and ideologically diverse states holding primaries on the same day. Exclude some candidates, and then go to the next n, etc. (n=3, n=5, perhaps?). So it'd be like 'Super Tuesday' but happens at the beginning. The obvious benefits - [1] primary campaigning would have to appeal to a broader demographic, [2] it'd still manageable to travel within some n states. And maybe: [3] change the states every election cycle. It's bizarre that with all the theories of voting and game-theoretic analyses of group preferences that we continue with the most simplistic system. About our current system: one has to ask (as a favorite Italian literary detective always does): cui bono?