One of the nation's top political analysts, Stuart Rothenberg, dissects politics at the congressional and statewide levels.

Stuart Rothenberg: Presidential primary critics lose the battle for change

By Stuart Rothenberg/CNN

WASHINGTON -- Humorist Will Rogers might put it this way: "Reports of the death of the current presidential primary system have been greatly exaggerated."

While some political insiders predicted that the Republican National Committee, which met in Philadelphia right before the GOP National Convention, would scrap the current presidential primary system for 2004, the RNC was unable to agree on an alternative.

That leaves the current system intact -- and many Republicans worried about how the party will select its nominees in the future.

Front-loading, the hallmark of the current system, puts a premium on early fund-raising and severely disadvantages long-shot candidates who can't put together a national campaign unless and until they have received a media boost from an early primary or caucus victory.

The "Delaware Plan," which would have established a primary schedule based on the size of each state, had significant support at the meeting. It would have had small states go first, followed in groups by larger and larger states.

Spreading out the primaries and starting with smaller states that expect retail politics would test candidates over a longer period, allow dark horses to build momentum, and give voters more time to evaluate the candidates. But that schedule would also allow for the formation of deeper divisions within the party, and give the GOP less time to heal from the fight for the nomination.

Larger states opposed the Delaware Plan, rightly believing that this schedule would make them irrelevant. They were unmoved by supporters of the proposal who argued just the opposite, that the nomination couldn't be wrapped up until later in the process since so many delegates would be at stake late in the primary schedule.

In fact, the results of the first few primaries would likely narrow the Republican field, dictating the pace and direction of fund-raising and generally establishing the front runner -- even though the big states could, in theory, "pick" the nominee.

Opponents of the Delaware Plan also insisted the Republicans would be at a disadvantage if the Democrats didn't go along with the new system, since the Democratic Party would likely have a nominee much earlier than the GOP.

But the demise of the Delaware initiative and other proposed plans shouldn't have come as a complete surprise. While many political observers complain about the current system, critics can't agree on the problem or on the solution.

Some think the early Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are the problem (especially since New Hampshire didn't vote for the eventual GOP nominee in 1996 or 2000), while others complain primarily about primary front loading.

Obviously, it's not enough for Republicans to be dissatisfied with the current system. They have to agree on a change. And as often is the case with proposed legislation on Capitol Hill, the devil is in the details.

Any presidential selection system benefits certain kinds of candidates and disadvantages others, and the party hasn't really discussed any changes from that point of view. So until they figure out what kind of system they want, the Republicans are stuck with the current one.

But why did the Bush camp involve itself in the debate over a schedule for 2004 when it initially stayed out of the dispute? Because they started to become worried that the debate over nominating system had started to be divisive, and a real fight was brewing. For Bush, all fights this week are to be avoided, so Bush's political lieutenants passed the word that the governor didn't support the Delaware Plan.