The Primaries why have them?

I am asking this in GQ as I want to see if I can get some sort of a reason behind this as opposed to a political answer.

Soon the democrats will have a primary in SC. Why? The state never votes Democratic. Why should they have any say in what Democratic candidate will be elected. When is the last time SC voted for a democrat Carter?

So you get the point. Without being political. I could reverse the same question a bit and say why do the Republicans have a primary in a state that votes Democratic. I don’t think there is many of those. What MN or MS?

Do all the state allow crossing over. In that case why won’t the Republcans in SC just vote for the weakest Democratic candidate. For example Dean.

I think you get the jist. Certainly no matter how much Dean is like he isn’t electable. The South won’t tolerate it and if you look at last election the south is pretty much solid Republican, and even more so now that the census will give them more electoral votes.

Other than the “bubba” candiates of Carter and Clinton and LBJ who were southerners, it doesn’t seem to make sense to allow people to chose a candidate.

Again you could reverse it and put it so why would the Republicans want that?

Just because (and I’m basing this on what you said) the majority(>50%) of the state doesn’t vote democrat does not mean that the state is 100% republican.

Back when I was a kid in Atlanta, the south was so Democratic that Republicans did not run for office. However, when the national convention was held the was a Georgia (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina [sup]Get the drift?[/sup]) delegation. That was then and now you make the statement:

Things change and they don’t change by saying “You didn’t vote our way last time so you don’t belong to our club.”

You asked so I’ll tell you. I am an Independent, but I’m going to register as a Democrat to vote in the Mississippi primary. If you’ve never noticed I’ll add the fact that Republicans most often have boring primaries. Democrats almost always make things interesting in the primaries. :confused: [sup]I know not why.[/sup]

The straightforward answer is that all of the major political parties have both a philosophy and a policy of not disenfranchising the members of their parties. Nor do they have any psychic knowledge of the outcome of the next election. Nor are primaries limited to the presidential race. Primaries for state, county, and local races are also held by the parties at the same time, giving them extremely good reasons to make sure they take place.

And no, not all states allow crossover voting. In New York, for example, you must be a party member to vote in that party’s primaries.

The theory that members of the opposite party in crossover states vote for the “least electable opponent” is much thrown about on the Internet, but there is no good evidence that such spite voting takes place in large numbers in the real world.

And Markxxx, you did a damn poor job of keeping politics out of your post.

Actually, both parties assign delegates based not only on population, but also on how the parties candidates fared in the state in the past.



All info from this site. While it uses allocations from the 2000 conventions, according to PDF’s available
the Democratic formula remains unchanged.

2004 Democratic delegates by state