Unfortunately, I agree with you on this point. One reason I started this thread. On the other hand, how many voters understand the electoral college. When my kids each left Canada to go to college in the US (where they have stayed) I explained to each one the electoral college. They were each incredulous that anyone could have dreamt up such a system.
Also the fact that in primaries the most energetic and engaged voters are more likely to vote in primaries. In general elections, the voters are generally less interested and less ideological.
So a bunch of zealous ideologues pick a candidate and hope they don’t turn off all the less interested voters who only show up in general elections (many times just the general in a presidential year, turnout in midterms is 30% lower in midterms than presidential, turnout in primaries is even lower).
That’s actually the best-case scenario. The alternative is that control of the legislature is divided, and the state simply goes unrepresented until the next state election. (Delaware only had one senator from 1899-1901, and then no senators until 1903.)
I find the legality of that to be horseshit. You should not be allowed to choose who the candidate is that your candidate will run against. It’s a crooked and broken system. I loath the open primary concept, and even in closed primary states I abhor the idea of the general populace deciding who candidates in the general election shall be. It
is ridiculous.
Either you don’t read too good or are too locked in to your party bubble to understand what I said. I vote for the candidate who, IMHO, is the best - regardless of party. Example - if my #1 ranked candidate is Party A, I’ll vote that way in the primary, If that candidate does not make it to the general election I will re-evaluate the remaining candidates. This part happens often, because the primaries are often crowded and mainstream candidates get lost among the extremists. If the best remaining candidate is Party B, I will vote that way. That has happened more than once. Making me stick to the same party for each election is, while open to abuse (but what system isn’t?), the best way to go IF the intent is to elect the best candidate.
To force anyone to vote for a sub-optimal candidate simply because that candidate belongs to a specific political party flies in the face of having a representative republic.
Maine is using an instant runoff system in its gubernatorial primary this spring, as voted in by referendum a year or two ago. The state legislature has not formalized the structure yet, however, and Republican candidates in particular are threatening not to abide by the primary’s results. I don’t know much about Maine politics but could this system, which I like very much, be in reaction to the election of Paul Lepage, who won initially in 2011 with 37.4% of the vote and was re-elected in 2014 with 48.2%? Jeebus, Mainers, you’ve been stuck with this guy for a long time.
I’d be interested in some of our posters from parliamentary countries weighing in on this subject. No primaries, right? How well do your parties generally do when selecting candidates?
Ugh, that should read “Not making me stick to the same party…”.
In Canada there are no primaries. But the local riding association, consisting of members who have paid a small amount of money to join the party, generally makes the choice. This can be, and occasionally is, vetoed by the national party leader. But it really matters little since nearly all bills are decided by straight party line votes. And if a member of parliament doesn’t vote the party line, then he will not be allowed to run under the party label next time. Occasionally, they can make a case that it is their conscience and be excused. Note that there is only one office up for grabs in each election. Except my town votes for mayor and councilman on the same ballot. The ballots are so simple that you still mark an X on a piece of paper and they are hand counted. So no voting machines to hack.
I know what you said. And you can rationalize it all you want to justify your actions. But open primaries are a way for opposing voters to skew results in their favor. And the idea of Joe Six Pack who is not a member of a party deciding who is going to represent that party makes the entire system a sick joke.
Yeah well, we’re stuck with it, so it’s time to figure out how to work within it.
That said, maybe it’s something to think about. Have a randomizing computer program set up to have each state have their senatorial candidates chosen by voters from a different state…
You think it’s not going to be one anyway?
That’s adorable! 
There is nothing undemocratic about the smoke filled room. Each party nominates the best people they can. Voters pick which point of view they want in November.
Do I advocate a return to smoke filled rooms? Sure. But I trust there are other fixes to the a primary system that does such a poor job of translating public preferences into rationalized policy.
Chronos: Real conventions would be media circuses. I’m not clear why that’s a bad thing or why that would stop business from taking place. Thinking about it, given modern communications, I suspect that vote wrangling would be done before the pre-convention anyway. So a February pre-convention wouldn’t be real either. Disarray is bad for media optics and would be avoided.
Then again 2, February is a long way from November. So maybe a little actual negotiation might take place.
I think this is in reference to my “convention before a convention” idea. So I’ll respond: You don’t invite them. Sure, media will do what media do. They’ll hover, they’ll seek leaks, they’ll squeeze water from every pebble on the beach. But at the end of the day, the parties should just let their delegates (a nice combination of office holders, other bigwigs, and rank-and-file elected delegates) pick their candidate from a pool of candidates behind convention hall doors, based on whatever vetting or standards the party wants to set in place.
Most media circuses are things the media wasn’t invited to. If your plan depends on something not being a media circus, then your plan will fail. Though it’s not really clear why they wouldn’t be invited, anyway: Why wouldn’t a party want extra publicity?
No. Are you aware of the difference between open primaries and the actual primary system?
Slightly less than half of states have open primaries. All it would take is a legislative act in those states to rid ourselves of open primaries.
The primary system itself will be much harder to abolish because it would take a major change in state laws, federal laws, and all political parties. Unfortunately for the time being it seems both the populace and the parties are content with the circus primaries have become and the ass clowns that end up getting elected.
Primaries are an effective way to raise money from big donors. If they want to influence future legislation, it’s important for them to identify pliable candidates early on. Other western democracies also want to select candidates who are attractive to voters but there the party platform takes precedence over a candidate’s obligations to his campaign benefactors.
It’s getting to be time for the Dems to rethink their primary systems.
Do you seriously think that going completely over to a caucus system will change things? If anything, it will only concentrate the loonies’ power to choose candidates. Or perhaps you’re referring to non-party members voting for candidates, which has never been a large enough factor to actually sway primaries. Or perhaps all 50 states will go over to this convention thing.
But I’ll bite. What other suggestions do you have?
Because I’m suggesting they go back to the “behind closed doors” model, but with more than just a handful of donor-types. Let it be some sausage-making convention, with bigwigs, elected leaders and (a lot of) rank-and-file party members. Then they can embrace the extra publicity at the summer convention just before the election.
I mean, hell, let the media do whatever the heck they want to get their ratings during this nominating convention, and leakers are always gonna leak, but at the end of the day, it would be a delegate vote behind closed convention doors, so we don’t have this massive-money circus spreading across half a year. Have a super-condensed process with wannabe candidates focusing their attention on a convention hall of voters. That room of voters pick whomever they think would be the best president.