WENDELL ROBINSON . COM

Confused and befuddled by the recent upheaval in the presidential primary schedule? Always wonder why Iowa and New Hampshire occupy the front-end of the line when it comes to determining the party nominees? Looking for a more realistic and logical way to set the candidates for the November general election?

Have I got a solution for you.

Why not base the primary schedule and calendar on the ‘AmericanMirror‘?

What’s the ‘AmericanMirror’ you ask? It’s a ranking of how average each of the United States (plus the District of Columbia - can’t forget them) is in relation to one another. The ranking is based on an analysis by the Associated Press of 21 demographic factors compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau including race, age, income and education, immigration and the percentage of residents living in urban and rural areas. The end result is the state that most closely mirrors the national norm in the amalgamation of these factors is considered the “most average”.

What’s the most average state in the United States? According to 2006 census data, the state of Illinois. Who’s the least average? The state of West Virginia. All kidding aside, what plays in Peoria really does play everywhere else; and West Virginia, well I don’t think I need to go there. I heard about the ‘AmericanMirror’ last night on National Proletariat Radio and I was completely impressed with it’s straightforward simplicity. You can hear Michele Norris’ report here.

Something that I was struck by is where the “early primary” states (although with all of the juggling and leap-frogging going on who knows if they’ll remain “early”) rank on the list - Iowa is 41st, New Hampshire is 49th, Nevada ( a newbie at the front end of the calendar) is 33rd and South Carolina (usually the ‘first in the South’) is 24th. I don’t know about you, but why in the world do we rely on these least normal of states to determine who our president will be (whether you like it or not, the early primary states pretty much seal the fate of presidential campaigns and since the two major parties’ nominees ALWAYS win, the Hawkeye and Granite states have an unusually strong influence on picking them)?

Right now we let states tied to agriculture and old economies determine the candidates that are supposed to reflect the American spirit. No offense to 41(Iowa) and 49 (New Hampshire) respectively, but they are so far from normal that they cannot possibly serve as a fair barometer of what our country wants or needs. Instead their significance in the primary process forces candidates to pander for votes by patronizing issues that only matter to a very minor segment of the American populace. How does this make sense?

So I would like to propose a new way to approach the primary process - the AmericanMirror Primary Process.

Why not use the ‘AmericanMirror’ or something similar to determine how the primary calendar rolls out. Shouldn’t the average American be the gauge for who is chosen to run our country? It seems pretty simple to me.

Two years (I use two years because now that candidates seem to be running almost four years before election day, the time frame allows for proper campaign planning) prior to the next presidential election, use the most recently vetted census figures to determine the current average rankings. Use the months of February, March and April in the election year to hold a primary election in each of the top five average states in successive two week intervals (the top-ranked state goes first, then the second goes second, etc.).

So as not to completely disenfranchise the least average (or unique for those offended by being considered “unnormal”), a mini-national primary could be held in the first week of May involving the bottom 25 states. The three week window gives the candidates time to regroup and visit those states for campaigning. The remainder of the states could then have their primaries later in May.

If we were to use this system for the 2008 race, here’s what we might see:

Let’s assume that election days will be Tuesdays (that’s a whole other kettle of fish that we should discuss) and the field of candidates remains those who have officially indicated their interest in running (sorry no FRED, Newt or Al Gore for this discussion, but you’re either in or you’re not). The year’s first primary would be held in Illinois where we would likely see homestate hero Obama (on the Democrat side) and probably one of the Rudy McRomney’s (on the Republican side). Next comes Oregon and low and behold you could see non-mainstream candidates like Conman Dennis Kucinich (for the D’s) and Ron Paul (for the R’s) carry the day. Then Michigan where a strong old-line mainstreamer like Hillary (D) and probably Michigan-born Romney (R) win. From there it’s on to the state of Washington which might strongly support candidates with strong resumes such as Richardson (D) and Gilmore (R). The early primary litany would end with Delaware where local Senator Biden (D) and moderate-seeming Giuliani (R) end up in the winners’ circle.

Wow the first two and a half months of the primary season pass and no clear nominees have emerged. Some of the lesser candidates have dropped out, and the next three weeks are a flurry of activity in the bottom 25 (26 if we include DC) states. Some of the candidates criss-cross the country visiting states they think they can or need to win, while others are spending a lot of time in California in hope of gaining that state’s heavy count of delegates. The mini-national primary results in purging the still large fields so that both parties end up with two strong candidates duking it out for their party’s nomination over the month of May in the remaining states. June arrives and the party’s nominees - nationally-tested candidates - remain; each truly representative of their parties and the country.

I think this approach makes sense for a couple of reasons:

• It takes into account the average American and how they would vote
• It would expose candidates to a wider audience
• It provides opportunity for lesser known candidates
• It allows for an orderly and thoughtful approach to the election calendar

So that’s my idea. I would be curious to hear your thoughts. You can comment here or send me an email. And I’ve installed a poll on the main page to gauge your opinion. Take the wenPOLL on the main page and let me know if this is something that’s worth pursuing.