Even Governor Edward G. Rendell is talking about primary reform.  Let me remind you, talk is cheap, Senator Feinstein and Governor Rendell.  It will take substantive action before the convention (among other things) to bring me back to the Democrats.  So, time's a wastin'.  I'm awaiting.

There are four plans that have been proposed for primary reform.   The oldest three are described more clearly at FairVote.org.  A "newer" idea is noted after this quote from FairVote.org.

Delaware Plan: Under the Delaware Plan, the states would be put into four groups according to population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-sized states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four consolidated primaries would occur on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning in March and ending in June. Although having valuable benefits, the main disadvantage to this plan is candidates having to compete in 12 states in the very first primary, which makes retail politicking harder, and the fact the states are always in the same order.

Regional Primary System: The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed the idea of regional primaries, with a series of regional primaries separated by a month and with the order of regions changing in every election cycle. While having the benefit of ensuring all states in a given 20-year period would have a chance to be among the first primary dates, it would make retail politicking very difficult.

American Plan / California Plan: The American Plan, more commonly known as the California Plan, features a schedule consisting of 10 two-week intervals, during which randomly selected states may hold their primaries or caucuses, with a gradual increase in the total population of states and territories holding primaries/caucuses. This 20-week schedule is weighted based on each state's number of congressional districts. American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, which also send delegates to both national conventions, are each counted as one district in this system. In the first interval, a randomly determined combination of states with a combined total of eight congressional districts would hold their primaries, caucuses, or conventions. In the second period--two weeks later--the eligibility number would increase to 16. Every two weeks, the combined size of the contests would grow by eight congressional districts, until a combination of states totaling 80 congressional seats (8 x 10)--nearly one-fifth of the total--would be up for grabs in the tenth and last interval at the end of June. What ordinarily would be the 7th primary date would be switched with the 4th primary date, to give all the big states a chance at having an earlier primary. As the political stakes increased every two weeks, a steady weeding-out process would occur, as less successful campaigns reached the point at which they were no longer competitive in these larger contests.

What is my choice?   None of the above.   Right now, I am leaning toward the kind of primary reform written about at Vote Early, Count Often, by Jonathan Soros.

I will do a more thorough analysis of Soros' plan in a future post.   Any comments?