National Primary

Great Debates
21

pkbites - the general election is spread out over several months. The first Tuesday in November is not the only voting date of the general election. Overseas and absentee ballots can be submitted the moment the list of candidates becomes official. “Election Day” is a deadline, not a one-shot deal.

Fortunately for the electorate, “Election Day” is generally a 50/50 choice, with some thus far statistically irrelevant exceptions. A party primary, with multiple candidates and platforms, takes more time and requires more effort, so from a purely logistical standpoint, it makes more sense to do it progressively.

spoke makes a good point. The rotation of the primary order is something I’d not heard of before, but it sounds like a reasonable solution. And if I recall correctly, many states did indeed move their primaries this election season. North Carolina where I live unfortunately screwed itself by allowing a redistricting land-grab by the Republican minority - our primary date still hasn’t been set because voting districts are awaiting judicial review.

22

Remember that the primaries and caucuses are party functions, not state functions. The national Democratic party approves the scheduling for the Democratic primaries, likewise the Republicans.

And the parties don’t want the primaries all held at the same time. They want time for weaker candidates to drop out, they want time for candidates to demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses to voters, so that by the time the general election comes around the candidates will have stood the test of time. Other states would like to go first, but the national parties have forbidden it, giving the honor to New Hampshire.

23

Well, because by having their primaries the way they do now, they get to make use of taxpayer dollars to pay for their private election (private that is in all but what, seven states?). If the dems or repubs or libs or whoever decided to have their primaries on different days than the official state primary day (which they very well could), theyd have to pay the people to man the polls, count the votes, rent the machines, etc. Plus far fewer people would take the time off work to go vote. The way it is now, they all get a free ride; the taxpayers of each state pay for the parties’ private elections.

24

A long time ago, nobody cared much who won the early primaires and caucuses. It’s been the media that has turned it into a circus of world import and we’re not going to put that genie back in the box.

The parties aren’t going to but they could force Iowa down the pecking order and choose a state more representative of national and party demographics. Missouri, for example, is closer to the national percentage of farmers, union members and minorities than Iowa.

25

It isn’t, generally, until the first primary is over that the nation wakes up and realizes that the presidential race has started. Having a series of primaries is therefore helpful, because it prevents the few most politically active from picking the nominee. There are other benefits as well.

The primary system, being spaced out as it is, lets less well-funded or known candidates to get to present themselves to the voters. In a national primary, the candidate who happens to have the best name recognition at the time of the vote (Howard Dean in early January, most likely) or who is leading in the stupid horserace polls that dominate so-called “television journalism,” would win.

Putting the first primaries in small states puts a unique pressure on the candidates to actually present themselves and interact with the voters in a very real way. The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are wonderfully cynical about polls and candidates, and do a good job of vetting these people. Even if they don’t always pick the eventual winner, they do a good job of knocking the front runner off base a bit, preventing an out and out coronation, which is what a national primary would be.

Spacing out the primaries also allows one of the candidates to build momentum, and eventually win a majority of the delegates. In a national, six-way primary with more than one or two reasonable candidates, you could easily end up with no delegate majority for anyone, and thus a brokered convention.

Which is not to imply that the current situation is a panacea. I would prefer to see it more organized, and for it to go on longer.

I would, as others have suggested, break the primary into ten elections, with five states (and various territories, DC, etc) in each. The primaries would be organized based on the population of the states in question. The five smallest states would vote first, then the next five smallest, etc. This would spread out the season, keep the early contests in the states where there’s a chance for less-well-funded candidates to emerge, and where the voters can inspect candidates in person. It would also keep the contest going for a long while, and give most states a chance to have their say, since it would be impossible for a candidate to accrue a majority of delegates until very late in the game, possibly the last round in a contested match up.

26

Actually, it was the parties who put the actual selection of the candidate in the hands of the primaries in the late 1960s, early 1970s. Prior to then the primaries were fairly meaningless, with party big-wigs choosing the nominees at the conventions. In an effort to “clean up,” the parties transferred that authority to the states in the primaries.

You wouldn’t get the sort of meet-and-greet, one-on-one campaigning that makes it possible for a more-qualified, but less-funded candidate emerge from the pack, like you do in Iowa, where media is very, very cheap and most politicking is done a few voters at a time, and not in big TV commercial buys.

27

Something needs to change, though. Iowa and New Hampshire are in no way demographically representative, yet their primary choices are given a strong advantage over those of other states.

Not exactly accurate. While the national parties may influence scheduling, I believe the final decision belongs to the states (which in most cases fund the primary process) or the state parties (which run the process in states where the primaries or caucuses are not run by the state). That’s one problem with the “rotating primary” ideas. Iowa and New Hampshire might refuse to give up their early spots. (Somebodey correct me if I’m mistaken about this.)

In '92, several Southern states moved their primaries up, and the result was a critical momentum boost for Bill Clinton. (Remember that he did not win Iowa or New Hampshire.)

28

Another vote for changing the system.

I am frustrated that I never get a say in who the nominee of my party is. By the time it gets to my state it is always a wrap. I’ve intentionally tried to not pay any attention to the whole process … I don’t want to end up liking someone who I’ll never get to vote for … yet again.

The current process gives a few states inordinate power in deciding who the rest of us get to choose between and that just is not right.

Although OTOH I am happy be spared the early media blitz that early primary states have to live through!

29

Yes, but is that the fault of the system or the candidates who drop out?

I wouldnt vote for Edwards or Dean, but I admire the way they keep going. Its not over yet, though everyone is acting as if it were. New York and Cal have their primaries on the same day, and as far as Im concerned its not over until that day is over.

I kind of look at it like, candidates who drop out because they didnt do so well in the first few primaries are demonstrating they dont have the resolve to be Pres or that would be required to be Pres.

If youre disappointed that a candidate you wanted to vote for dropped out before your state had a primary, Im suprised that your disappointment is not directed at that candidate - for being a quiter.

30

The system.

Three reasons:

  1. Candidates who don’t win early primaries find that their donations dry up.

  2. The bandwagon effect. The media rush to coronate a winner after the early primaries. The frontrunner winds up on the covers of a lot of magazines, and success builds on success.

  3. The national party puts intense pressure on candidates who don’t win early to drop out.

31

Given the amount of money it takes to keep campaigning, it’s not entirely the fault of the candidates who drop out (in fact, I’d say the majority of fault lies with the system.).

32

Are any of the smaller states demographically representative? Because it would be very, very bad to have the first primaries be in large states. Smaller candidates would never be able to compete, for one thing.

33

Well, Oklahoma and Kentucky are similar in size and population to Iowa, and are arguably more demographically representative (since actual black people and Latinos live there).

Even better, let’s spread it out, and do small states in 4 regions: Maybe NH in the Northeast, Nevada or New Mexico in the West, Arkansas or Mississippi in the South and Iowa in the Midwest.

34

The Wisconsin primary used to be a bellwether primary. Wisconsin used to have their primary in April. When a number of states upped their dates to be part of Super Tuesdays, the Wisconsin primary lost its bellwether status.

Now that the Wisconsin primary is this coming Tuesay, it has regained its bellweather status.

FWIW, I would offer a five-week primary period where there are 10 primaries on each Tuesday for five weeks. On top of that, the primaries would all be scattered by geography. That way, the candidates would be forced to travel the country non-stop in a grueling five weeks. It should reduced the regionalism where neighboring states cannot hold their primaries on the same day.

35

Again, the best candidate might not be the best-funded candidate, and forcing a lot of travel expenses right out the bat will weed out the candidates to just the well-heeled. The best approach keeps the first primary or two solo, and in a small state.

36

That’s not the best approach if the small state is not representative of the national electorate.

Furthermore, with a four-state approach, a candidate with limited funds can focus efforts on one or two of those states. (Which is what happens now.) Candidates who do poorly in all four states get weeded out, winners and strong showers get more campaign donations and move on to the bigger states.

37

I would take a more informed electorate over a more representative one any day of the week. We shouldn’t worship too elaborately at the altar of demography. (I’m not sure demography is a word, but I like the cadence of it).

I would not, however, be opposed to finding a more demographically representative state than Iowa or New Hampshire. But I’d prefer to keep the early primaries out of the South.

38

Just what the hell does that mean?

Particularly in conjucntion with that?

Please do elaborate, sir.

39

I mean that given the choice between a small state that’s not entirely representative, but which has a tradition of engaged primary voting, and an electorate that actively engages the campaigns by attending rallies, going to town halls, meeting with candidates and other forms of retail politics, or a somewhat larger state that’s more representative but wherein most campaigning is done through the cancer of TV media buys, I’d prefer the first primary were held in the former state, not the latter.

Southern states have a tradition which has ingrained prejudices, negative religiosity and a distrust of progress that I feel makes them poor bellwethers for the rest of the nation. The South is not like the rest of the country in many material ways, most of them negative, and I would not want to have a primary system which first vets its candidates by running them by the same sort of folks who elected Roy Moore to the Chief Justiceship of Alabama. I’d prefer to keep the first primaries in the more moderate, progressive and secular Midwest.

Southerners are traditionally more apprehensive of candidates from other regions of the country than the reverse: look at how John Kerry had to “prove” himself to the South, you don’t see Northerners demanding such regionalism.

Plus, since the South is no longer a swing region, its not nearly as important in a presidential race. The Republicans will win every Southern state in every presidential election for the foreseeable future, barring major national crisis, with the possible exception of Florida. So what does it benefit the Democrats to give the Southerners first say over who is their nominee? And since the GOP can count on their votes, I don’t see where they gain, either. The Midwest is the new swing region, so I say focus the early primaries there.

Which is a mark in favor of Kentucky, a state you mentioned, or sticking with Iowa. The voters of Iowa may not be the most demographically representative, but they do do a very good job of engaging the candidates and making informed choices.