I have a micro-piece in the mag this week about the state primary jumble and the attempts by both parties to get their ducks in a row. The fight is a little more contentious on the Dem side — they have more to gain and more lose — but there’s an even larger risk: this final graph, which deals with how the skirmish suggests to some the fundamental instability of the party system, got cut for space:
Michigan and Florida still have time to reach a compromise with the national party, though in the end, they have little incentive to. Delegates taken away by the party will likely be reinstated by the nominee when the convention rolls around – no one wants to be nominated in an arena that features hundreds of empty seats – and candidates will look for ways around the stricture against campaigning outside of the “first four” (they can send spouses and other surrogates). According to Kennedy School professor Alex Keyssar, the stand-off could remind Americans that the two-party system is not, in fact, enshrined by law. Political parties can make rules but there’s “no legal enforcement method for them;” in the Gilded Age, he says, “That’s ultimately what broke up the cartels.”
In the same interview, Keyssar pointed out that the reason that the candidates would risk disappearing from Florida — or Michigan — for four months is that keeping the party structure intact is ultimately more important than a swing state. We’ll see what Michigan has to say about that.
Yesterday, Carl Levin introduced an alternate primary schedule proposal. I haven’t a had a chance to look at it, but it’s here. The NYT looked at other options here.
