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.
4 responses so far ↓
SDLinda // February 28, 2008 at 12:27 am
I have just heard about both the regional and interregional plans, and I don’t yet know all the particulars of the proposals.
From what I know now, I like the interregional plan. It would give you a sampling of what is happening around the country at a couple of points over time. People would stay more connected to the discussion. With the regional plan, people may disconnect after their region has voted.
I’m a researcher and the interregional plan is similar to stratified random sampling over time, with the stratifications the regionals of the country. The regional plan is like cluster sampling, with one cluster surveyed at each point in time. With it, you can’t start to see patterns until you are almost done with the various clusters. With the first method, you can start to see patterns earlier. A lot depends, though, on the way the 6 groups are constructed.
Of course, the interregional plan would be more costly, with more flying back and forth across and around the country. But I think the benefits outweigh the costs.
Carl // February 28, 2008 at 12:48 pm
This is great input and I really welcome your thoughts on this. My gut instinct is that the interregional plan allows for more even representation of the voters as the process goes along, rather than distorting the nomination by giving too much influence to certain states or regions.
But your experience as a researcher is more useful than a gut instinct, and I welcome any more information you find about how the sampling effect of the interregional plan would improve voters’ opportunity to make a meaningful choice.
Also, if you have any estimates of the statistical likelihood that each subsequent primary out of the six would still be meaningful, I would love to hear it. It would be great to inform staff at Congressional offices with numerical data, even if estimates, about how this plan would quantifiably improve the chances that even later primaries would have a chance to affect the outcome of the election.
Hokkaido // June 18, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Hokkaido.
Carl // June 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Hi Hokkaido,
Thanks for your comment and for viewing the site. I can see why you may have missed the point, because when I re-read that particular post, I haven’t introduced the topic very well. I was picturing that people would be reading the blog in sequence, but that doesn’t make sense now that I reconsider. I may edit the post to be more self-contained, or I may just be more aware of it in the future. Thanks for the feedback.
If you are interested in the reform of the US Presidential primary election system, let me know if you have questions.
-Carl
Leave a Comment