Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Actually, why not have a primary where everyone can vote, and encourage everyone to vote? Then you get a candidate that has essentially already been elected by the politically-interested people ;P

Many states do have open primaries.  Others do not.  Some states allow you to register with a party the day of the primary (and you are always allowed to change parties).

Even in open primaries the exit polls indicate that the electorate is heavily tilted towards party loyalists of the party holding the primary, be they registered as party members or not.  So don't expect zombie Reagan to be winning Democratic open primaries anytime soon.

[G-Flex]

Is there any reason not to have the primaries all on the same day, as in general elections, so that the early states don't hold a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention?

[alway]

Is there any reason not to have the primaries all on the same day, as in general elections, so that the early states don't hold a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention?

Well, no, but then the early states wouldn't get a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention.

[Solifuge]

Is there any reason not to have the primaries all on the same day, as in general elections, so that the early states don't hold a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention?

Well, no, but then the early states wouldn't get a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention.

Gotta disagree that there's no reason to stagger the primaries as they are. It's very difficult for a candidate to campaign and do outreach EVERYWHERE AT ONCE. The kind of road-trip necessary to campaign across the entire country is already bad enough spread out over the time it presently is, much less all in one go, with no chance to stop, organize, interview, debate, etc. Also, if you pushed all the primaries back to, say, the last day possible, your candidates most recent rallies in some areas may have been months ago, and not at all fresh in the minds of voters.

Staggering them gives candidates the chance to campaign in each region close enough to the primaries that their messages are still fresh, relevant, and impactive when those regions are caucusing and/or casting ballots.

[Sheb]

So would you support a staggered schedule for the "real" election?

[G-Flex]

Gotta disagree that there's no reason to stagger the primaries as they are. It's very difficult for a candidate to campaign and do outreach EVERYWHERE AT ONCE. The kind of road-trip necessary to campaign across the entire country is already bad enough spread out over the time it presently is, much less all in one go, with no chance to stop, organize, interview, debate, etc. Also, if you pushed all the primaries back to, say, the last day possible, your candidates most recent rallies in some areas may have been months ago, and not at all fresh in the minds of voters.

Staggering them gives candidates the chance to campaign in each region close enough to the primaries that their messages are still fresh, relevant, and impactive when those regions are caucusing and/or casting ballots.

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about the general election? They'd just do the campaigning beforehand instead.

The fact of the matter is that a staggered schedule makes some states more important than they have any reason to be; this is not good democracy.

[Solifuge]

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about the general election? They'd just do the campaigning beforehand instead.

The fact of the matter is that a staggered schedule makes some states more important than they have any reason to be; this is not good democracy.

Well, it certainly structures the Strategy Game that is a political campaign, like where and when candidates spend their time/funding. I'm not sure that it's fundamentally less democratic, though.

I'm not a sports person, so I hope not to botch this metaphore... but holding votes simultaneously is like determining the outcome of a basketball game by having one player from each team simultaneously throwing penalty shots into opposite hoops until one misses, whereas staggered ballots are more like the multi-person competition over one ball which teams normally play. In the second example, if a team is doing poorly, they can adjust their strategy to adapt to their opponents, decide what resources to commit to what function on their team, and adapt to changing conditions. In the first example, you can't strategize or adapt... you can only hope you sent your best player forward and prepared them well enough.

Whatever way it works out, you're ideally still seeing a competition to see who is the best player... but both of the games would be played radically differently. To leave the metaphore, simultaneous votes put a lot more focus more on a candidates travels, the presence of their message in mass media, and mostly require lots and lots of advanced preparation. Staggered votes put more focus on strategy and adaptation, and (I would say) create more opportunities to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate as they're put through a trial by fire.

If the concern is that primaries in each state influence those in subsequent states, a compromises could be keeping the primary ballots/caucus results secret until every one is decided... I think that would allow maximum time to campaign just prior to the decisions being made, without giving unfair influence to the first states.

EDIT: Still... that it affects later primaries isn't in question, but remember that each state still has equal chance and power to react to the primaries held before, and have equal say in the end process (per capita, of course). There's no true "advantage", so much as their is a chance to structure the playing field first, before other states get a chance to restructure it.

[palsch]

So this report from Maddow (YT version) is getting some play. Basically she goes to do an expose of how Ron Paul is focusing on winning delegates even where he loses the vote only to find that the Ron Paul campaign is openly and proudly doing so, even sending a senior advisor onto the show to boast about how they are using the process. He is pretty much claiming a majority of delegates in all caucus states.

When senior members of a high performing campaign are talking about gaming the system (against the silly little 'voter preference' thing) and enforcing a brokered convention on one side, and on the other serious thinkers who I respect are repeating my pie in the sky, beat Romney at any price, Santorum/Newt strategy that I thought was utterly absurd... this could be a very fun year.

Oh, and something about Maine. Probably not important.

[G-Flex]

To leave the metaphore, simultaneous votes put a lot more focus more on a candidates travels, the presence of their message in mass media, and mostly require lots and lots of advanced preparation. Staggered votes put more focus on strategy and adaptation, and (I would say) create more opportunities to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate as they're put through a trial by fire.

Except it puts some states in different roles than other states in a manner that is completely arbitrary and unfair.

If the concern is that primaries in each state influence those in subsequent states, a compromises could be keeping the primary ballots/caucus results secret until every one is decided... I think that would allow maximum time to campaign just prior to the decisions being made, without giving unfair influence to the first states.

This would be fair enough, I think, although unofficial polling would probably still skew later results.

[PTTG??]

No, individual people who live in California and New York tend to be more ethnic than Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and thus they are worth less.

[Nadaka]

If you want to preserve the incredibly expensive and lengthy campaign season but still allow states to fill any and all roles...

You could assign the order of states primary ballots randomly or in a cyclical fashion.

[G-Flex]

I don't see why you can't just have the candidates campaign across the country, as they do now during the primary season, and then hold all primaries simultaneously. It would take the same amount of time, even.

[Frumple]

Nrguffle. The primaries eat up taxpayer money? That, I did not know, and it kinda' pisses me off. Primaries are party run, a party function, not government run, and provide little to no benefit to the general populace.

Rich bastards (and I'm speaking across parties, there) can afford to pay for their pissing contest without draining cash from the people. Or they can submit to laws that regulate the process so it's less expensive and time consuming. Which apparently we need if the primaries are going to be sucking up millions of taxpayer dollars.

Anyone got a mini-history lesson on how the hell it ended up like this?

[Deadmeat1471]

I have a question.

I know Ron Paul has a fanatical but small support base.
But why do they think he can ever win? It's never going to happen.
He's a laissez faire extremist, an extremist wont win an election anytime soon.

He thinks if the government is eliminated from the economy, there would be no need for social welfare or anything else.
It's absolutely insane. This i 19th century Britain stuff, we had no regulation, little state
intervention. The poor were dying in the streets in the millions, disease rife, education non existant.

What Ron Paul promotes as a political and social system is exactly the reason social intervention and government intervention came about in the first place....

[Urist Imiknorris]

They tend to apply the "clap your hands if you believe" strategy, much like with his policies.