Slate: "The Kerry Cascade". Is this the best way to select a nominee?

[milkyway]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095993/

"In fact, the combination of cascades and hindsight bias renders much of what passes for "obvious" in this election campaign deeply misleading. Because the cascade is effectively driven by a small minority of voters, the result is more or less arbitrary—Dean really could be winning just as easily as Kerry. But once we know the answer, hindsight bias kicks in and makes the arbitrariness of the cascade (seem to) go away. Everything pundits are saying about Dean now could just as easily be used (and would have been used) to "explain" a Dean victory. Had that happened instead, we would all be walking around saying, "Well, of course Kerry lost—he's got all the charisma of a dead horse—and that Dean is a real firebrand." In each of these "parallel worlds," Dean and Kerry are exactly the same (more or less), and voters are (more or less) exactly the same as well. In terms of the inputs, the difference between the two worlds could be a coin toss. And yet the results, along with our collective memory of what happened and why, are absolutely, completely different, and we can't even imagine now what that other world would have looked like, let alone how vigorously we'd be rationalizing it."

-------------

Columbia University associate sociology professor discusses social decision-making, and how Kerry's win in Iowa led to his steamrolling to the nomination.

There's got to be a better way than this to select a nominee. I don't mean this to sound like sour grapes, and if Dean were in Kerry's position I would probably be looking at things in a different light, but--there's way too much importance given to a sliver of the population of a non-representative state. Kerry effectively won the nomination with the votes of approximately 40,000 Iowans (out of 2 million registered voters in Iowa).

I'm not sure what a better system would be. We elect the President with a one-day election, so why not the nominee? The downside of this is that it would be even more difficult for lesser known candidates to compete with establishment candidates, because they would have to compete nationally rather than using Iowa to springboard them to national prominence.

Perhaps the best solution would be to spread the state primaries out again so that momentum tends to fade, and each state looks freshly at the candidates. I also don't like that Iowa is the state that has been given such importance. It's population is not representative of the entire country. Maybe it would be best if four or five states voted on the first primary date, rather than just one.

Again, I don't mean this to sound like excuse-making for Dean's not winning the nomination. But I think changes need to be made for 2008 in the Dem primary system.

[redqueen]

1. Not sour grapes, reasoned thinking

Those that choose to stick a nasty label on it and ignore it are choosing the status quo, however rotten it may be.

I find that's a popular stance around here, though.

[mr715]

2. I concur

I was thinking...

How about set up the primary calander such that the states with the most delegates go the latest?

That way, small states wouldnt set the tone for larger states and it'd be known... it'd be a horse race till the end.

[bigtree]

3. If their candidate was leading they would claim that providence reigned

O8)

[BL_Zebub]

4. They make valid points, but

To say that Dean and Kerry are exactly the same is patently ridiculous. Kerry is a tool of the corporatist machine. Dean warned against the machine and was therefore targeted for extermination.

[arwalden]

5. So Let That Be A Lesson To Him!

You can't target BIG MEDIA in THIS country and get away with it! Nosireeebob! :hi:

-- Allen

[KittyWampus]

7. Dean Is Not Part Of The Machine. He Was A Part That Moved To The RIGHT

his election year conversion on a whole HOST of core Democratic Issues was hollow and opportunistic.

[KC21304]

6. What a bunch of horse manure.

Same old song, different verse. Remember when we heard from the press in 2000 that the people just didn't like Al Gore ?

[diamondsoul]

10. I didn't LIKE Al Gore.

And I hate his dumb-ass now! I feel the same about Clinton.

That's not quite the same.

[BringEmOn]

8. I would like to see a change

Possibly, a series of regional primaries.

1. Ten 5 state regions (or eight 6 state regions).

a. Candidates could concentrate campaigns on one region for two weeks (and not have to travel between New York, California, Georgia, and Ohio, for example).

b. Media in each regional would be required to grant each candidate equal time (as public service announcements) for the two weeks prior to the primary. Hopefully, this would help keep more candidates in the race throughout the primary season.

c. Order would be drawn randomly for the first election cycle, then rotated every election cycle after that.

2. Another option: One state from each region in a series of primaries.

a. Solves the problem of one region choosing the front runner(s), but spreads the campaigns geographically.

Whatever, we need a change.

[jpgray]

9. 'know little about him and don't like him very much'

This flies in the face of favorability polls. Slate is such a shitty mag.