My Vote Doesn't Count

In most cases I would say that no matter what, every vote counts, but in the case of US presidential candidate nominations this is not the case. It is barely March, barely a fifth of the states have weighed in and already it is being presumed that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate this fall. Super Tuesday is just 5 days away which should more of less decide who the candidate will be but less than half of the states will have cast their votes. This is decidedly unfair to states like Utah, New Mexico, and Oregon who do not have their primaries until late May and the beginning of June.

I understand the theoretical reason why primaries and caucuses are spread out over six months. It gives candidates the chance to focus their funds and attention on individual regions to gain a greater rapport with the local population. This is a great idea, but the implementation is all wrong.

If it was so important to spread things out then why do 33 states hold these nominations between January and March but only 21 from April through June? Granted that 33 includes places like Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands that are not included in the November election, but the weighting is still disproportional. To break it up even further, there are 4 in January, 7 in February, 22 in March, 8 in April, 7 in May, and 6 in June. There is no logic to the proportions.

I can suggest 3 better plans:

1) Hold all primaries/caucuses on the same day (like every other election). This should take place approximately 1 month before the general nominating convention and candidates should use the proceeding months to campaign and strengthen their following:
     Pros: Residents of one state will not be influenced by the results of a previous outcome and the race won't be effectively over before all states have had their say.
     Cons: Candidates will not have the chance to focus on smaller chunks of the nation to gain local support. It will also increase marketing costs for candidates as they will have to release more national rather than regional ads.

2) Space state primaries evenly over the course of 6 months. This would mean approximately 26 weeks with 2-3 elections each week or doing monthly votes with 9 states voting on the same day at the end of each month. What state has which slot would be a random draw that could be done the year before so that no state winds up with a historically bad spot at the end of the line like we have now:
     Pros: States will not be stuck with their primary not being effective year after year and candidates can still focus their attention on one segment of the country at a time.
     Cons: Logistical coordination becomes very difficult, especially in states where the primary is tied to other local elections.

3) Determine primary position based on the number of delegates up for grabs moving from least to greatest number. This means the smallest states would go first and be able to set a trend but the larger states that follow would still have enough weight to make a difference in the overall outcome:
     Pros: Determines the delegates in a manner so that smaller states will not be completely overridden by their larger counterparts and delegates can still given attention to local votes.
     Cons: Does not completely remove the possibility of a race being determined before all states can have their say.

Of the three options the third is my personal favorite, followed by number one. Unfortunately I do not have the means or the power to put forth or implement any of these plans so I suppose we will have to live with the FT level 6 system we currently have in place.