I was going to post in the superdelegate thread but figured it would probably be a hijack, so I started a new one. It’s obvious the system is broken. To me, the solution seems pretty obvious. Please explain to me why this wouldn’t work:
All primaries held on the same day. There were candidates dropping out after Iowa and New Hampshire. Ninety-eight and a half percent of the country hadn’t had a chance to vote yet, and already their choices were being reduced. Talk about disenfranchising party members! The states that haven’t had primaries/caucuses yet are limited to two Democrats and one Republican for choices. That’s ludicrous.
Eliminate winner-take-all delegate selections. If a “presidential hopeful” can pull 40% support from a big state, give him/her 40% of the state’s delegates.
If we can’t eliminate superdelegates completely, at least reduce their number and introduce the concept of “conflict of interest” (e.g., don’t allow candidates and their families to be superdelegates). It’s pointless to have Hillary and Obama as superdelegates; they’re just going to vote for themselves. And Bill Clinton as a superdelegate when his wife is running? What sense does that make? He’s not going to vote based on the good of the party. Selecting him as a superdelegate was just a way for Democratic leaders to slide in an extra vote for Hillary.
By this system, every voter in every state (and territory and so on…) would have an equal say in selecting candidates. Isn’t that how it should be?
I’m very opposed to the idea of a national primary. I think the process should be drawn out so the maximum number of voters get the chance to see the candidates up close, and so the candidates have to deal with a variety of challenges, issues and types of campaigns. A primary process allows the race to the evolve.
A single-day primary would give even bigger advantages to the candidates with the most name recognition. I think your use of “disenfranchisement” is inaccurate - the candidates don’t just quit because they do poorly in Iowa or New Hampshire. They have been campaigning nationally for some time and Iowa/NH give them a look at how the race is shaking out. If they do poorly in Iowa and think they can make up for it elsewhere, they stay in. If lesser known candidates didn’t have a chance to do well in Iowa or New Hampshire and get a bump nationally, they wouldn’t be able to compete at all because they would just get totally outspent.
I have no problem with changing the way delegates are assigned, and I think the superdelegates should be eliminated.
I don’t understand, Marley23. I didn’t say the candidates can’t still campaign, or that the process should be shortened. I just don’t think people who live in the first ten states should be able to eliminate candidates; and that people who live in the last ten states should have a chance to vote for everybody.
Why are Iowa and NH given first shot everytime. It seems the people in those two states select our candidates for the most part. I don’t feel they are representative of the country as a whole. I am certain they don’t identify with Washington State, or California or Florida. Does anyone know how those two states have been selected as the barameter? Is there a way to shuffle that up–randomly or via a lottery?
Good question, Hakuna, but why shuffle it and give two different states a chance next time when we could just do a national primary and let all 50 states do it every time?
The process is shortened if all the voting is done on one day, even if that day is later in the year. And obviously the candidates would still campaign, how else would they get votes? I said they have to participate in different types of campaigns, and it’s better because the process takes longer to play out.
The candidates eliminate themselves. Nobody forces them out.
I don’t know if changing the way this works would get you the results you want. There would be months of campaigning around the country instead of a more one state at a time deal, but candidates would still quit if support was low (they wouldn’t stop doing their own polls, and neither would the news) and they ran out of money.
Iowa and NH go first because they traditionally go first, and the parties don’t want to upset them by saying “It’s time to give someone else a turn,” even though it would be more fair to do so.
For the third time in this type of thread I will post my answer (that never gets a response ): BROKERED CONVENTIONS
Take this year. If we would have had a one day national primary you would have had: Romney 25%, McCain 25%, Huckabee 20%, Guiliani 20%, Paul 10%
On the other side: Hillary 40%, Obama 35%, Edwards 20%, and Richardson 5%
Both side would have brokered conventions and the end result would be that nobody’s vote mattered for anything as the two major party nominees would be chosen by party hacks at the conventions…
Shuffle it. Two states at first. Then two weeks later, three more. Then two weeks later, five more. Then ten more every two weeks until we’re done. The ten most populous states can’t be in the first two cycles. The assignments will be drawn semi-randomly in a lottery that favors states that haven’t gone in an early slot for a while.
All proportional. No superdelegates. The party elders can manipulate the nomination enough from the sidelines and by the fact that they get to chair the convention.
First, polls don’t always match how people vote, so the numbers you listed are rather irrelevant. Second, the polls (and votes) would have been different had the national campaigning started earlier and the national primary been later.
But my serious response is that brokered conventions would have no place in my plan at all. Whoever gets the most votes becomes the party’s candidate. Alternatively, if you think “spoiler” candidates would mess things up, do an automatic runoff vote with the top 2 or 3 candidates a week after the primary.
): BROKERED CONVENTIONS