Primary Elections & US Constitution

[Jinx]

How much of the USA's Primary Election circus is mandated by the US Constitution? Must we elect delegates, for crying out loud! What a fiasco! Why can't the popular vote be taken at FACE VALUE? Why must OUR votes equate to delegates that go to some grossly overpriced convention that wastes too much time and money? When did all this hoo-hah start, anyway? Last, why don't ALL US states vote on the same day? If we can handle Super Tues., I think the USA can handle all voting at one time. - Jinx :confused:

[Ace309]

None of it. It's all the parties.

[Jinx]

None of it. It's all the parties.
That's what I figured! It just goes to show where the common man's vote ranks...it's all for show. And, some states split delegates while others don't. ...And then, there's that whole Florida thing I totally don't understand.

[yabob]

The parties could theoretically choose their candidates any way they wished, such as a head-on-head tiddleywinks tournament. In fact, they used to be chosen at the conventions, which often required more than one ballot. Binding primaries became preferred after the 1968 Democratic convention and the riots partially ignited by Eugene McCarthy supporters who felt they had been screwed over by their own party. The Democratic National Committee encouraged binding primaries as a reform, and the Republicans quickly did the same thing.

[Exapno Mapcase]

There is no mention of primary voting in the Constitution for one very simple reason: political parties didn't exist at the time.

Parties came along very quickly but there are totally extra-constitutional. Parties are private bodies and have First Amendment rights up the wazoo as exemplifiers of political speech.

As private bodies, parties can make up any set of rules they want. They can have caucuses or primaries. The vote can be for candidates or for delegates. Superdelegates that aren't voted for are also part of the process. The government should have no say in the matter whatsoever.

The only say the government does have, and it's hard to justify, is that state governments allow the use of their standard polling places, poll workers, voting machines, and oversight for primaries. I don't know whether the parties reimburse states for the expenses.

Conventions start in the first third of the 19th century. Party leaders and activists went to pick a candidate for president. (States also had conventions for the zillion state offices, like city council, county legislature, state legislature, some judgeships, attorney general, and other stuff.) By the end of the century, the populist and progressive movement were demanding some say into the process. For good reason. Conventions were cesspools of vote trading. Favorite sons sound like an all-American tradition, but the practice meant nothing more than a state would nominally back an in-house candidate and hold out until the big shots needed votes. At which time promises of jobs, positions, earmarks and just plain graft were made in trade for releasing the state's votes.

That's why primaries and caucuses came into being, the theory being that voting for delegates pledged to particular candidates meant that they couldn't abandon them easily for loot. Loopholes abounded and after the disastrous 1968 Democratic Convention, controlled by Mayor Daley's storm troopers, in which dissident delegates got beaten by police, the sane half of the party would strip the bosses out of almost every bit of their power. Sure, they let the members of Congress and governors and other elected officials be "superdelegates" but mostly what happens is that they see who's going to win and make a beeline to that candidate so they don't get left out of the spoils. No process that mandates a party to cut hundreds of its top elected officials out of the loop would be accepted, but counting individual votes instead of electing delegates would do exactly that.

Why not have all primary voting on the same day? Well, the 2004 presidential race cost more than $1.2 billion. With prices going up and many more candidates in a primary race, that figure would probably double. You think that all the candidates do is raise money now? They've spent some $200 million so far. What if they had to raise ten times more? What happens with candidates like Huckabee or Biden or Thompson or even Edwards or Giuliani? They are ran into money problems already although the process has been somewhat spread out over six weeks.

What exactly is the fiasco you're referring to? The Democratic field has been cut to two people, the Republican field to two as well, since Huckabee and Paul have no more support left. Isn't that exactly what a process should do? Now the top two contenders can campaign against each other without the distraction of ten person debates and get their positions across more easily and clearly.

It's all working extremely well this year. Maybe you need to articulate what your problems with the system are in rational fashion before we can answer any real question that might be buried under the shouting.

[Jinx]

Exapno, you raise some good points now knowing the history of how we got here. I was merely seeking a factual answer to why, among other things, we need the hullabaloo of two conventions to reiterate what the American people's votes have already said! Maybe we got here on the premise that the average American simply can't handle working with such large numbers...so counting delegates is a lot easier.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Nah, I think the simple answer is that conventions were the same type of response that the electoral college is. Both are set up to deal with messy situations of many candidates, none of whom were clear frontrunners.

That was the expectation from the beginning. A number of good men who throw their hats in the ring and somehow they would have to be whittled down to just one.

National campaigning wasn't an answer in the 19th century. Too slow and awkward. And it wasn't thought seemly for a candidate to do so himself. It made far more sense for a small number of state leaders to get together and work with one another when they were close enough to talk and argue and bargain and come up with an answer. Straight voting by the millions would confuse the issue even more. What happens if nobody gets 50% of the vote? How many national runoff votes could there be? How would the candidates campaign for such a thing? How long would it stretch out the election process? How much money would it cost?

We're finally in an era in which travel is not an issue but we know the rest of the answers. It stretches out the process to over a year - unthinkable before. It costs billions - unthinkable before. And we still need some sort of winnowing process because so many are in the race that nobody can get a majority.

Yet the process works fine. No convention has needed a second ballot since 1952. I don't believe the superdelegates ever were the deciding swing factor. We know who the candidates are several months before the convention so they can get started raising money and creating their campaign teams in April or March or February instead of August. The conventions are infomercials used to pump up the base rather than sleazy horse-trading fests that hem in the abilities of presidencies to pick their own cabinet members and judges.

The system ain't close to perfect. I'm cynically convinced that the only reason the parties keep Iowa and New Hampshire in front is that they look like America in front of the cameras - they're 95% white faces, in other words Few foreign born. Few illegals. Few Asians. Few Blacks. Few gays. Few poverty-stricken urban blight areas. That's what Americans still want to believe America looks like. Start in South Carolina and Florida? Or New York and California? What would the same people who say American isn't ready for a black or woman president say? Anyway, no proposal to fix the problems has any political traction that I can see. Who benefits? The candidates get away with less personal scrutiny and more attack ads if the campaign starts in larger states. Does that help anyone?

The system will continue as is until something makes it go smash. That something seems far off.

[Richard Parker]

Aren't there provisions in state constitutions regulating primaries?

[Freddy the Pig]

Aren't there provisions in state constitutions regulating primaries?No, in general provisions for primary elections are found in state law.

[Otto]

And then, there's that whole Florida thing I totally don't understand.
The whole Florida (and Michigan) thing is chest-thumping by Iowa and especially New Hampshire, who have carved out a facade of importance for themselves politically through pride of place as "first in the nation." First caucus in Iowa and first primary in NH. For the last several election cycles states have been moving their primaries earlier and earlier in the calendar year under the theory that the later their primaries are held the less relevance they have to the process of selecting the candidate. Meanwhile, NH has a state law that mandates that their primary be held in advance of any other state's primary. As the other states moved their primaries further and further up, NH was forced to move theirs up as well. In response, the DNC and the RNC both forbade any state other than NH to hold a primary any earlier than February 5. Michigan and Florida defied the parties. In response, the DNC stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates and will not seat them at the convention and the RNC stripped each state of half of its delegates.

The real puzzler is why South Carolina, which also held its primary before February 5, got away with it.

[friedo]

The real puzzler is why South Carolina, which also held its primary before February 5, got away with it.

South Carolina didn't entirely get away with it; they had their delegates halved by the RNC just like Michigan, Florida and Wyoming. Not sure why the DNC hasn't done anything about them, though.

[Otto]

Not sure why the DNC hasn't done anything about them, though.
Can you imagine the squawks from the African American community that would accompany the DNC's stripping the delegates from South Carolina?

[Freddy the Pig]

The DNC invited Nevada and South Carolina to move their delegate selection before Super Tuesday to add more diversity to the "early primary" states.

[DSYoungEsq]

How much of the USA's Primary Election circus is mandated by the US Constitution? Must we elect delegates, for crying out loud! What a fiasco! Why can't the popular vote be taken at FACE VALUE? Why must OUR votes equate to delegates that go to some grossly overpriced convention that wastes too much time and money? When did all this hoo-hah start, anyway? Last, why don't ALL US states vote on the same day? If we can handle Super Tues., I think the USA can handle all voting at one time. - Jinx :confused:
You do understand that the United States Constitution doesn't even require that you be allowed to vote for the members of the Electoral Congress sent by your state? :eek:

That's right: You don't have a constitutional right to vote for the President, let alone for the nomination of a candidate from any particular party. In the beginning, not all states elected their Electors; it wasn't until something like the 1820s (I'm to lazy to look it up) that close to all the states did use elections to accomplish that task.

[DSYoungEsq]

Duplicate. I hate it when the capybaras take coffee breaks. :mad:

[BobT]

While it's been mentioned earlier that political parties are private bodies, they don't have all the First Amendment rights that others have.

A political party cannot restrict who votes in its primary on the basis of race or gender or age, for example. One of the methods used by Southern Democrats after Reconstruction to disenfranchise blacks was to not allow them to vote in primaries. And until the 1960s, that essentially meant you couldn't vote for the candidate that was a cinch to win.

The Supreme Court eliminated this practice much before then.

[Exapno Mapcase]

While it's been mentioned earlier that political parties are private bodies, they don't have all the First Amendment rights that others have.

A political party cannot restrict who votes in its primary on the basis of race or gender or age, for example. One of the methods used by Southern Democrats after Reconstruction to disenfranchise blacks was to not allow them to vote in primaries. And until the 1960s, that essentially meant you couldn't vote for the candidate that was a cinch to win.

The Supreme Court eliminated this practice much before then.
How are political parties any different from any other private entities, who also can't discriminate on the basis of race or gender or age. Nor is that a violation of their First Amendment rights. You don't have a First Amendment right to break the law.

[Richard Parker]

How are political parties any different from any other private entities, who also can't discriminate on the basis of race or gender or age. Nor is that a violation of their First Amendment rights. You don't have a First Amendment right to break the law.

Private entities cannot discriminate on those bases because of the Civil Rights Act, not the Constitution.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Why is Richard Parker like Microsoft?

A helicopter was flying around above Seattle when an electrical malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic navigation and communications equipment. Due to the clouds and haze, the pilot could not determine the helicopter's position and course to fly to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the helicopter's window. The pilot's sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters.

People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign, and held it in a building window. Their sign read: "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER."

The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map, determined the course to steer to SEATAC airport, and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT building because they gave me a technically correct, but completely useless answer."

:D

[Richard Parker]

Why is Richard Parker like Microsoft?



:D

My mistake. I assumed you thought the private entities were constitutionally required to take certain actions. Instead, your question is why political parties aren't subject to the Civil Rights Act?

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Private entities cannot discriminate on those bases because of the Civil Rights Act, not the Constitution.

Wait... how does the Civil Rights Act not run head onto the whole 'Freedom of Association' thing, here? Aren't political parties just as free to determine who participates in them as the Boy Scouts are to prohibit gays from joining or Augusta National is to keep women out?

[Richard Parker]

Wait... how does the Civil Rights Act not run head onto the whole 'Freedom of Association' thing, here? Aren't political parties just as free to determine who participates in them as the Boy Scouts are to prohibit gays from joining or Augusta National is to keep women out?

Gays are not protected under the Civil Rights Act, otherwise the Boy Scouts would not be able to exclude them from their meetings in areas of public accomodation. The Boy Scouts cannot, for example, decide to exclude black people and still hope to use areas of public accomodation.

ETA: Neither is gender, I believe.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Gays are not protected under the Civil Rights Act, otherwise the Boy Scouts would not be able to exclude them from their meetings in areas of public accomodation. The Boy Scouts cannot, for example, decide to exclude black people and still hope to use areas of public accomodation.

Ahh... it's the area of public accomodation that's in question. Thanks.

[Richard Parker]

I would think. But I'm just reading the statute, I don't actually know anything about this area of law.

[Exapno Mapcase]

No, it's all BobT's fault. He's the one who said "While it's been mentioned earlier that political parties are private bodies, they don't have all the First Amendment rights that others have." and followed that with an apparent illustration, that "A political party cannot restrict who votes in its primary on the basis of race or gender or age, for example."

This is one of those compact statements that contain so many wrong or irrelevant assumptions that they are hard to take apart briefly.

Who says political parties don't have all First Amendment rights? If they don't, why don't they? How are they different from other private bodies? Is discrimination in who is allowed to vote an example of a loss of a First Amendment right? Isn't that parallel to the restrictions placed on other private bodies, making political parties not special? Do First Amendment rights protect the speaker from the law if crimes are committed?

The whole mishmash that BobT's incoherent posting needs to be taken apart and refuted thread by thread. The fact that some of his examples fall under Civil Rights Law instead of the constitution is technically correct, but doesn't seem to me to get at any the issues raised since parties have to follow both just as private parties do.

Parties must draw from the pool of registered voters in a state, the two main (and other lesser if any parties) can sometimes restrict to only those who have registered for that party. Parties don't have the ability to discriminate in any other way. It's not a First Amendment Rights issue; it's a matter of legal membership.

[Richard Parker]

The fact that some of his examples fall under Civil Rights Law instead of the constitution is technically correct, but doesn't seem to me to get at any the issues raised since parties have to follow both just as private parties do.

Parties must draw from the pool of registered voters in a state, the two main (and other lesser if any parties) can sometimes restrict to only those who have registered for that party. Parties don't have the ability to discriminate in any other way. It's not a First Amendment Rights issue; it's a matter of legal membership.[Emphasis mine]

I don't really doubt these assertions, but I'd like to know the basis for them. Like I said, I'm no expert here, but what part of the Civil Rights Act do you think applies to political parties? If I form the KKK party, are you saying I have to accept non-white members?

[Exapno Mapcase]

In New York State, party registration is maintained by the county clerks office. You walk in, prove you live in the area and are eligible to vote, and fill out a card. Nothing else is necessary. The party never meets you or has any interaction with you at all, except that your name is on a list to send stuff to. How could they reject you under any basis?

In New York, party registration must be done a month before the primary, IIRC. In other states you can walk into a polling station and fill out a registration card on the spot to vote in a primary. Would somebody say: no, you can't vote because we don't like Dopers? Logistically impossible and politically even more impossible. Being a member of a political party in the U.S. does not carry the connotations of membership found in other countries. No dues, no meetings, no requirements, no tasks. Just a checkmark on a sheet of paper to indicate which sets of primaries you can vote in. No party has control over that. If you're eligible to vote you can register for a party. I know of no exceptions (although obviously you can be a member of only one party at a time.)

[t-bonham@scc.net]

There is no mention of primary voting in the Constitution for one very simple reason: political parties didn't exist at the time.I don't think this is accurate -- political parties did exist. In England, for example, the Tories & Whigs had been around for about a hundred years by the time of the American Revolution.

You could say that political parties didn't exist in America. But even that is stretching it. While political parties didn't exist as formal bodies, they certainly existed in practice. There were arguments between the agrarian, Jeffersonian democrats vs. the mercantile, Hamilton Federalists way back then. Some of those arguments, and the compromises they agreed on, are still shown in the US Constitution.

[Balthisar]

You do understand that the United States Constitution doesn't even require that you be allowed to vote for the members of the Electoral Congress sent by your state?
It's not specifically enumerated, but doesn't the requirement that states have a republican form of government kind of cover that? (The thing about Senators being appointed was explicit, so that won't be a fair comparison.)

And then, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Boy, is my face red. I wish a state would abandon a popular election just to rile up all those electoral college haters out there.

[yabob]

It's not specifically enumerated, but doesn't the requirement that states have a republican form of government kind of cover that? (The thing about Senators being appointed was explicit, so that won't be a fair comparison.)

...
That says that the state's own government must be of republican form. There may not, for instance, be a hereditary monarchy set up to govern Delaware. Also, a republican form of government does not require direct election of a head of of government. There are many republics in which heads of state and/or government are chosen by means other than direct election - Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Government) for instance. In fact, it's mildly curious that the states are so uniform - the admonition about a republican form of government gives them much more latitude than they choose to exercise. This subject's been discussed here also.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I don't think this is accurate -- political parties did exist. In England, for example, the Tories & Whigs had been around for about a hundred years by the time of the American Revolution.

You could say that political parties didn't exist in America. But even that is stretching it. While political parties didn't exist as formal bodies, they certainly existed in practice. There were arguments between the agrarian, Jeffersonian democrats vs. the mercantile, Hamilton Federalists way back then. Some of those arguments, and the compromises they agreed on, are still shown in the US Constitution.
Well, yeah, I was talking about the United States. And they knew about parties, which they called factions. The point is that they hated factions. The entire Constitution is written to minimize the potential mischief caused by factions. The ideal was supposed to be electing disinterested patriotic-minded gentlemen who put nothing but the best prospects for the entire country to the fore. Presidents were supposed to be like Washington, by acclimation the best man for the job. He was thoroughly disgusted by the partisan bickering of Jefferson and Hamilton in his cabinet.

I repeat, there is nothing in the Constitution about political parties. That's because they hadn't formally formed at the time and they did everything they could to keep that from happening. They might as well have tried holding back the tide, but that was their specific intent.