Well it looks like Mr. Skurnick and others will get their wish, and the New York primary will be moved up to February 5th along with a bunch of other states. This will induce future Presidents to pay attention to New York and ignore other states, until they retaliate by moving their primaries to January 20th, forcing New York to move its primary to January 3rd, and so on and so forth until the first primary for the next election takes place two days after the inauguration. I, too, was dismayed by the realization that with New York’s electoral votes locked up by the Democrats, and incumbents virtually unchallenged in legislative and congressional offices, there was basically no election in New York in 2004. This lack of democracy is not what they taught you in school. So I have another suggestion to make future Presidents to pay attention to New York – cut a deal with Texas to have the each state allocate its electoral votes in proportion to the percentage of the vote — if the other will as well.
Texas has the same problem we do in reverse – everyone knows the Republicans will win Texas, so there is no reason to pay attention to the place. It’s enough to make proud Texans and New Yorkers envy Ohio. If votes were allocated proportionally, on the other hand, every vote here would count almost as much here as in any swing state. Indeed, the Democrats could win more votes in Texas, and the Republicans could win more votes in New York, than most swing states could provide.
Either state could choose individually to have its electoral votes allocated proportionally rather than in one big lump. But doing so unilaterally would require the party in power – the Democrats in New York, Republicans in Texas – to in a sense hand electoral votes to the other side with nothing in return. Thus, the suggestion that a deal be cut. Texas might complain that it is now a little bigger, with more electoral votes, giving the Democrats more to gain from the arrangement. On the other hand, the way demographic trends are going, Texas is likely to become a possible win for the Democrats long before New York is in play for the Republicans. So the self-interested aspects balance.
One more point – the electoral votes should be allocated in proportion to the vote in the whole state, rather than having electors selected by district. Although I live in Brooklyn, where the majority will clearly vote Democratic, I want some attention paid here, and for my vote to matter for once. Selecting electors by district would merely provide more attention to a few swing districts along with the swing states. Every vote should matter. Of course, some method would have to be created to determine who goes to Washington if the Democrats get, say, 22 electors in New York rather than 24.
Unlike going to a straight popular vote nationwide, something likely to be impossible given opposition from small states, this is something that could be done by two states working together no matter what the small states say. Let's have an actual election in New York in November 2008. By that time, we'll have forgotten all about February.