Look what happens if you write your Senator!

Cool, I got an email response from Senator Boxer.  This seemed promising. But reality was disappointing…

OK, Senator Boxer gets extra credit for being the first to respond, but she loses points in the “Personal Reply” and “Data Management” categories.  Her “auto-reply” feature pulled the suffix field from her contact database and used it as my last name.  I included “J.D.” in the suffix because I graduated from law school.  My last name is not “J.D.”

Additionally, her letter doesn’t address which bill I wrote about, much less answer my questions.  For what it’s worth (not much), here’s the response…

Dear Mr. J.D.:

Thank you for contacting me with your request for information about specific legislation. I believe that all citizens should become involved in the legislative process by letting their voices be heard, and I appreciate the time and effort that you took to write to me.

As you may know, the status of a bill often changes from one day to the next. To find the most accurate, up-to-date information about a specific bill, I would advise you to visit http://thomas.loc.gov. This site will allow you to track current and past legislation.

You can find more information about the federal government, my work in the Senate, and current issues on my website at http://boxer.senate.gov. On this site, you will find my statements and press releases about current events and pending legislation, links to other government websites, and detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for my constituents.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about matters that are of importance to you.

Barbara Boxer
United States SenatorPlease visit my website at http://boxer.senate.gov  

If Congress sits on a bill, does it hatch?

Congress has not one, but TWO bills on primary election reform, and either one would be better than what we have now.   And each house has a matching version of both reform plans, so they don’t need to conference to get these sent to the President.  All they need to do is vote them out of committee and get them to the floor.

1. Regional Plan – S. 1905 and H.R. 3487 Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007

2. Interregional Plan -  (Levin / Nelson) S. 2024 Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2007, and H.R. 1523 Interregional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007

So what do they think will happen?  If they just sit on the bills in committee, they’ll become law by osmosis?  Is this like the student that puts the homework under his pillow hoping that his brain will study it overnight?  Or hiding dirty dishes in the cupboard before guests come over and hoping they’ll become clean?  For all I know, the Congress is working on these bills in committee right now.  I haven’t heard back from our California Senators yet, and I haven’t found the status of these bills, other than “in committee.”  (and I feel very official when I say “the Congress”)

I’m sure both the Senate and the House are busy with lots of other important bills, but these are relatively straightforward reforms.  Schedule them for a vote in committee.  Bring them to the floor. And vote on them.  This has to be done before 2010, or we’ll be stuck with the same “leap-frog the other states” primary scheduling in 2012.

Do me a favor.  Contact your member of the House and your Senators and ask them which of these plans they support.  Ask them to tell you the status.  And ask them to report at least one of the bills out of committee to the floor.  Ask them to fix the primary system.  It’s broken.

Let’s get it done and move on to fixing the electoral college.

Dear Congressman Udall…

I sent this to New Mexico Congressman Tom Udall through his contact page.  You can find your member of the House of Representatives here. 

Dear Congressman Udall,

Thank you for your support of primary election reform. You are listed in govtrack.us as co-sponsor for two bills on presidential primary election reform.  (H.R. 1523 Interregional and H.R. 3487 Regional.)

1. Are there other pending bills on reforming the presidential primary process, either that you are sponsoring or not?

2. Do you prefer one of these bills or the other?  And why?  (It seems like either would be better than keeping things the same.)

3. Does either one enjoy more support than the other in the House?

I welcome your response to this email and any input by you or your staff at regionalprimary.wordpress.com.

Dear Senator Boxer…

I wrote the following letter to Senator Boxer through her contact page at senate.gov.  I’ll post any reply here.  You can find your senator here.

Dear Senator Boxer,

I am writing to ask for your opinion and for information, and to request that you act.

1. Opinion – Of the two pending bills (that I am aware of) for Presidential Primary Election Reform, S. 1905 Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007 (“Regional Plan”) and S. 2024 Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2007 (“Interregional Plan”), which do you prefer and why?

2. Opinion – Which of the two bills enjoy more support in the Senate and the House, in your opinion?

3. Information – What next steps are on the calendar for either S. 1905 or S. 2024, if any?

4. Request – Please use your experience and position as Senator from the largest state to push either or both of these reforms to a vote on the floor.

Nearly everyone agrees that the current system of states leap-frogging each other to hold the first primaries is not a healthy way to select presidential candidates.  Either reform is better than no change.  When the 2012 election comes, please do not let the same ridiculous primary train wreck occur. The time to fix this situation is now, in 2008.  Once 2010 comes, it will likely be too late for the next election.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. I look forward to your reply.  I also welcome your response and input from you or your staff at regionalprimary.wordpress.com.

Regards,
-Carl Isaacson
San Jose, California

The Plot Thickens! An INTER-Regional Plan is Proposed

In addition to the Regional Presidential Primary reform plan which has been proposed to modify US presidential primary elections, there is now a new option to consider.  Maybe it’s better than the Regional Primary.  See what you think. Congressman Levin and Senator Nelson have proposed a so called “Interregional” plan in H.R. 1523 and S. 2024.  This plan is discussed in a Wikipedia article linked on the right, and there are links for tracking H.R. 1523 and S. 2024 as well. 

 Your thoughts on the benefits of the interregional plan versus the regional plan?  Either seems better than the status quo, but does one have clear advantages over the other?  Add your comments and I’ll be reviewing each plan more as well.

Why ALWAYS New Hampshire and Iowa?

Why do New Hampshire and Iowa hold the first primary and caucus every election?  My understanding is that as small states, they have the ability to host candidates and hear thoughtfully from people who might make a good president, but whose campaigns would not otherwise be able to afford to get national exposure.  In effect, they introduce the major and minor candidates to the rest of the country.  “Hey U.S., Meet the Candidates!” 

 I think it’s a valuable and important function.  And I think in general they both probably do a pretty good job.

 But why does it have to be those same two states EVERY election?  Why not rotate every election?  Why not give other small states a chance to enjoy the spotlight? Couldn’t Hawaii do a good job?  Let’s have the candidates addressing a luau instead of a corn shucking.  Maybe it could be Nevada and we’d see the candidates in Vegas.  Or perhaps Vermont or Montana would like a shot. 

 Let’s go to a regional primary, like the identical ones proposed in the Senate (S. 1905) and the House (H.R. 3487) [see the links on the right], but instead of enshrining New Hampshire and Iowa permanently as the first states to cast their votes for party candidates, let’s start a rotation of small states to kick off the election season. 

Here’s an Ohio newspaper with a view…

Dear Senator Feinstein…

I wrote this message on the contact form at Senator Feinstein’s web site.  If you write to her, please refer to S. 1905, and mention that you read about this issue on regionalprimary.wordpress.com  If you aren’t from California, you can find your Senator at the U.S. Senate Contact Info Site.  Again, please mention S. 1905 and this blog when you write.

I’ll post any replies I receive on this blog…

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am writing to request that you initiate action on S. 1905, Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007.  According to govtrack.us, this bill is in committee, and has not been scheduled for debate or a floor vote.  Although this bill is not perfect, it is a good reform for a badly flawed primary selection system.

1. It will eliminate the ridiculous race by states to hold early primaries.
2. It will greatly reduce the disproportionate influence that certain states have EVERY ELECTION in selecting the candidates that the rest of the country is able to select from.

I have initiated a discussion on this issue at regionalprimary.wordpress.com, and welcome thoughtful input from you or your staff.

If it is true that “Washington is a place where good ideas go to die,” please use your position as respresentative for Californians to make sure that this is one of the good ideas that does not experience the Beltway Black Death. I respectfully urge you to get this bill referred out of committee and onto the Senate floor for a vote.  Or will we go through this anti-democratic process again in 2012?

Regards,
Carl Isaacson, J.D.
regionalprimary.wordpress.com

Regional Primaries… Will Congress Act?

The House and the Senate each have a bill pending on Regional Primaries.  In the Senate, SB 1905 was introduced in July 2007, and in the House, the matching bill HR 3487 was introduced in September.  The bills are identical, and each have been referred to rules and administration committees in their respective houses.  In the Senate, the Rules and Administration Committee held a hearing in September 2007, but the bill hasn’t received a committee vote as far as I know.

 There are links on the right to read the text of these bills and to track their progress.

 Basically, the bills would create a 4 region primary system, with one region holding primaries per month from March to June.  Under the bill, the system would begin in 2012, with a lottery to be held in 2010 to determine the 2012 regional sequence.  In 2016, the sequence would rotate, and so on in 2020. 

 In general, I think it’s a good plan, and it’s essentially what I was hoping for when I started this blog.  (It’s amazing what you find that’s already being done when you start asking questions. )  My only beefs are these:

Beef #1. Iowa and New Hampshire still get to go first.  Ugh! I hate that this compromise is written into the bill, but maybe it’s necessary to get the process started.  And you know what?  If this process gets in place, and there are a few years of rotating regional primaries, the ridiculousness of having Iowa and New Hampshire ALWAYS going first will be glaringly obvious.  Future reformers will have an easier time fixing that.  So fine, let Iowa and New Hampshire have their way.   Just get the bill done.

But, if they can get the bill out of committee without the concession to IA and NH, all the better.

Beef #2. This is less of a beef than #1, but I’d like to see the sequence rotate every 2 elections.  There is a rhythm to election cycles, and an incumbent running reduces the influence of the voters in that party’s primary.  Therefore, if your state goes first in 2012, and the incumbent in your party has a dead lock on the re-nomination, then you have essentially “wasted” your turn as the first group of states.   

Solution? Modify the bill in committee to change the rotation to every 8 years instead of 4.  But if 4 year rotation is the only option to get this bill through Congress, then by all means rotate every election.  It’s better than the current system.

What can you do?

Call your Senator and House Rep and urge them to support SB 1905 or HR 3487.  Get the bills voted on in committee and get them to the floor for a full vote!

Congressional Switchboard (202) 224-3121 for both the House and Senate

Find your Senator’s Direct Line – http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Regional Primaries… Show me the Links!

Do you know of blogs or websites that have info about Regional Primaries, Interregional Primaries, and other ways to reform the presidential candidate selection process?  Add your comments and I’ll put the links on the sidebar. 

More on Regional Presidential Primaries…. Iowa won’t like it

Gabby posed a couple of questions…. namely how would states respond to being lumped in a region and how would it affect individual states depending on which groups they’re lumped with…. 

Yes, I think states would take an issue with being lumped together as a region, because for some states, it would reduce their influence.  Iowa is an example.  Right now, they have a HUGE spotlight every four years and it’s a BIG publicity and revenue opportunity for Iowa.  Iowans would scream bloody murder if some nationwide decision took away their states’ rights ability to hold primaries when they want to.  Under a regional system, Iowa would get lumped with a Midwest region, or a North Central Region, or whatever.  They’d be lumped right in with Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and every other farm belt state.  Suddenly, Iowa wouldn’t get all these journalists and politicians interviewing Iowans for their opinion on everything.  [Carl's Note... as my subsequent posts report, under S. 1905 and H.R. 3487, The Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007, Iowa and New Hampshire would keep their special early spots on the election calendar. ] On the other hand, Kansas would like it, because it would increase their influence.  Candidates would be appealing not just to Iowa’s needs, but also Kansas.  And yes, it would make a difference which states are grouped together, because any state grouped with a large state would have reduced attention.  If Nevada was lumped with California, then California would have most of the delegates, and most of the media and politicians’ attention.   Maybe one way to compromise would be to say that states could hold their primary any time during a given month.  If you’re in the March group, any state in that region could choose any date in March to hold their primary.  If California held their primary March 1^st, Nevada could create some separation by holding their primary a week or two later.  Or maybe the window would be March 1^st through March 15^th to allow politicians to focus in a region, but still give smaller states a little bit of flexibility. In the end, no matter which way it ends up, someone’s going to not like it, and it will benefit certain groups while disadvantaging others.  It seems like it would ultimately be more fair, and more manageable for more people than the current system.  If you could measure it, and I’m not sure you could do so easily… but if you could measure, it would be nice if the new system achieved the following goals: 

1. Increase fairness overall in terms of each state’s and citizen’s opportunity to influence the selection of party candidates while the election result is still in question.
2. Increase overall state and citizen access to candidates while the election result is still in question.
3. Over time, even out the inequality of particular states or regions having disproportionate influence over the early vetting of candidates.
4. Decrease the insanity of individual states racing to hold primaries earlier than others
5. Reduce the lumping of huge blocks of delegates to be selected on days like “Super Tuesday”
6. Reduce overall candidate spending
7. Increase overall voter participation.
8. (this is highly debatable in terms of policy) Increase the likelihood that a desirable – but relatively unknown – candidate could get sufficient exposure to have a viable candidacy.

 One thing I’m not sure about as I think about this, is whether it’s better overall to compress or spread out the primary process.  Would it be better to stretch it from February to June?  Or compress it more?  If there are 5 regions, how likely would it be that the contest is still close by the 5^th region?  Is it desireable for unlikely candidates to drop out of the race early to simplify the selection process. Would underdog candidates be able to get a fair viewing in more states if the states were lumped into only 3 regions, and primaries held from February to April?  What about 4 groups, from February to May?  How much more statistical likelihood would there be for a candidate to remain in the election to the last primary in a 4 primary sequence, as opposed to 5?  Another advantage to a 4 group primary would be that every 32 years, each state would have the opportunity to be in each of the monthly groups.  Each generation, in a sense, could experience each position in the process. 

 Thoughts?