Today’s podcast is about an essay written by former Congressional Staffer and Political Consultant Matt Robison on his Substack Worth Knowing. He makes two key arguments: that the states that were the closest in the previous election should be the first states to vote in the next Democratic primary process; and these states ought to have a weighted advantage in the number of delegates they have at the convention.
From Wikipedia, here were the closest states in 2024:
States where the margin of victory was under 1 percentage point (10 electoral votes; all won by Trump):
Wisconsin, 0.86% (29,397 votes) – 10 electoral votes
States/districts where the margin of victory was between 1 and 5 percentage points (87 electoral votes; 72 won by Trump, 15 won by Harris):
Michigan, 1.42% (80,103 votes) – 15 electoral votes
Pennsylvania, 1.71% (120,266 votes) – 19 electoral votes (tipping-point state)
Georgia, 2.20% (115,100 votes) – 16 electoral votes
New Hampshire, 2.78% (22,965 votes) – 4 electoral votes
Nevada, 3.10% (46,008 votes) – 6 electoral votes
North Carolina, 3.21% (183,046 votes) – 16 electoral votes
Minnesota, 4.24% (137,947 votes) – 10 electoral votes
(“2024 United States presidential election,” Wikipedia)
Robison doesn’t get too much into the specifics of exactly how this would work, but I suggest a series of primary days with two states: Wisconsin-Michigan, Pennsylvania-New Hampshire, Georgia-North Carolina, and Nevada-Arizona, before opening it up to primary days with 8-10 states, loosely grouped by geography.
Robison doesn’t think that a primary process focused on battleground states would favor moderate candidates over progressive candidates. I disagree, it almost certainly would. But this is a feature, not a bug.
Anyway, enjoy the podcast!
