All state primaries on the same day

[CARLHAYDEN]

The effectiveness of money and television advertising is vastly overrated in the political process in America, particuarly in the circumstances I outlined.

Money and television advertising can be effective when opposing candidate(s) do not have recourse to the voters (i.e. a large constiuency when personal contact is effectively impossible) and one candidate has a major financial or media advantage.

There are numerous examples where the biggest spender in a race does NOT win if the competition has adequate resources, and a superior message/candidate.

[Vasall des Midas]

The effectiveness of money and television advertising is vastly overrated in the political process in America, particuarly in the circumstances I outlined.

Money and television advertising can be effective when opposing candidate(s) do not have recourse to the voters (i.e. a large constiuency when personal contact is effectively impossible) and one candidate has a major financial or media advantage.

There are numerous examples where the biggest spender in a race does NOT win if the competition has adequate resources, and a superior message/candidate.

Yes (in LA-3, the biggest spender up to the General election was David Romero, btw)...the questions are, though: How many people will read that booklet? How many people will find themselves sufficiently informed after reading it? If they see an attack ad about a candidate's stance on, say, abortion, will they just shrug it off and say: The booklet said otherwise? And how long before the election will they receive that booklet? Won't many of them already have made up their minds?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this would have a negative impact, I just don't think it would have a large impact either.
Most people don't vote on TV ads alone, of course, but rather fewer will vote on a government booklet alone.

[J. J.]

Your comment inspires a new question. Have we entered an era where GOTV organization becomes as or more important than mass delivery of a message? The 2004 results suggest that that might be happening.

GOTV was always important.  I'm not seeing too much of a difference.  The adage that I learned in Poly Sci 1 (the professor was also a Demo Committeeman) was, "Get your people out."

The GOP just had more inspired volunteers in this past election.  The Democrats relied too much on hired workers.  Soros spent how much?

[J. J.]

JJ

I largely agree with your posts but believe that the 2004 system used by the Democrats was seriously defective on several counts.

First, much of the winnowing had occured before a single state from the South or the West had an opportunity to participate.

Second, the system was so heavily 'front loaded' that a candidate was effectively selected before most of the prospective voters had an opportunity to have a careful look at the nominee.

Third, the system requires that delegates be selected to meet a variety of 'affirmative action' (quota) requirements.

I will agree with you partly on point one, but there was a lot of scrutiny of the top tier.  A Mosely-Braun, Kusinich, Lieberman, or Shapton didn't get it.  A Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Clark did.

Yes, this was too "front loaded."

Third, delegates are a lot like electors, except they are even less relevent.  They are basically their to applaud and wear funny hats.  I'm not seeing "quota" requirements as really having any bearing of the primary process.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The effectiveness of money and television advertising is vastly overrated in the political process in America, particuarly in the circumstances I outlined.

Money and television advertising can be effective when opposing candidate(s) do not have recourse to the voters (i.e. a large constiuency when personal contact is effectively impossible) and one candidate has a major financial or media advantage.

There are numerous examples where the biggest spender in a race does NOT win if the competition has adequate resources, and a superior message/candidate.

Yes (in LA-3, the biggest spender up to the General election was David Romero, btw)...the questions are, though: How many people will read that booklet? How many people will find themselves sufficiently informed after reading it? If they see an attack ad about a candidate's stance on, say, abortion, will they just shrug it off and say: The booklet said otherwise? And how long before the election will they receive that booklet? Won't many of them already have made up their minds?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this would have a negative impact, I just don't think it would have a large impact either.
Most people don't vote on TV ads alone, of course, but rather fewer will vote on a government booklet alone.

First, no my suggestion of the phamplet is NOT a panacea, but it will (I base this on comparing states with and without this feature) have a signficant impact.

Second, it also seems to me that public television stations in a state should be required to provide each ballot qualified candidate (not write-ins) with X number of minutes in the weeks before the election.  While this would probably have even less impact than the phamplet, it seems to me to be a reasonable requirement to help offset big money and the lackeys of the liberal media.

[CARLHAYDEN]

JJ

I largely agree with your posts but believe that the 2004 system used by the Democrats was seriously defective on several counts.

First, much of the winnowing had occured before a single state from the South or the West had an opportunity to participate.

Second, the system was so heavily 'front loaded' that a candidate was effectively selected before most of the prospective voters had an opportunity to have a careful look at the nominee.

Third, the system requires that delegates be selected to meet a variety of 'affirmative action' (quota) requirements.

I will agree with you partly on point one, but there was a lot of scrutiny of the top tier.  A Mosely-Braun, Kusinich, Lieberman, or Shapton didn't get it.  A Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Clark did.

Yes, this was too "front loaded."

Third, delegates are a lot like electors, except they are even less relevent.  They are basically their to applaud and wear funny hats.  I'm not seeing "quota" requirements as really having any bearing of the primary process.

While it wasn't a big deal this year, the imposition of quotas has been a big deal in past conventions, and may be again in the future.

In 1972 the Democrats unseated a duly elected delegation because it didn't have enough minorities elected.

In that same year, the party required the 'selection' of delegates in states won by Wallace who were black McGovern supporters.

Currently, well liked would be delegates who have long contributed both financially and in labor to the party are ineligible for delegate status because of quotas.

[J. J.]

While it wasn't a big deal this year, the imposition of quotas has been a big deal in past conventions, and may be again in the future.

In 1972 the Democrats unseated a duly elected delegation because it didn't have enough minorities elected.

In that same year, the party required the 'selection' of delegates in states won by Wallace who were black McGovern supporters.

Currently, well liked would be delegates who have long contributed both financially and in labor to the party are ineligible for delegate status because of quotas.

This isn't 1972.

Really, since 1980, no convention has come close to deciding, except as pro forma, who the nominee will be.  All nominees have walked into the convention with the votes to be nominated.  The convention does not even pick the VP.  In the sense of a deliberative assembly, the convention is pretty much meaningless.

A convention is important as a vehicle for showing the candidate and the party to the public.

The only exception has been for third party conventions.

[WMS]

Since my last posting, there have been several thoughtful observations, to which I will respond.

First, with respect to WMS and his opposition to public financed primaries limited either to declared party adherents, or simply closed to declared adherents of other parties.

Primaries were larely FORCED on the parties, NOT something they CHOOSE to use.  Indeed, the National Democrat party has refused to recognize state primaries that do NOT meet their rules.

Further, a significant number of delegates to the national party conventions are selected by other than primary (superdelegate, caucuses, state conventions, etc.)

So, if states want to have primaries to select delegates for the party national conventions, they have to abide by party rules.

Who forced the use of primaries? The national parties? And where does it say that the state has to pay for the parties' primaries?

And I don't care so much how the parties choose their convention delegates as long as I don't have to pay for it. The parties can run their own primaries if they want - in 2004 the NM Dems ran their own *president only* primary, at their own expense.

FINALLY

I notice that no one made any comment on my suggestion that candidates be provided (at nominal costs) with a page in a phamplet mailed by the state to all eligible voters in which to state his/her case.  This technique really curtails the influence of money and media in the process.

A good idea, although if you want to cut the costs you're going to have to make the tremendously uncooperative Post Office mail them for free. We kind of have that with the guides the League of Women Voters puts out, although details are scarce and not nearly enough questions are asked.

[J. J.]

Who forced the use of primaries? The national parties? And where does it say that the state has to pay for the parties' primaries?

And I don't care so much how the parties choose their convention delegates as long as I don't have to pay for it. The parties can run their own primaries if they want - in 2004 the NM Dems ran their own *president only* primary, at their own expense.

This was actually done in response to voter demands.  The first was down in Western PA at about the turn of the last century.  Now, they are provided for in party rules.

[Vasall des Midas]

The effectiveness of money and television advertising is vastly overrated in the political process in America, particuarly in the circumstances I outlined.

Money and television advertising can be effective when opposing candidate(s) do not have recourse to the voters (i.e. a large constiuency when personal contact is effectively impossible) and one candidate has a major financial or media advantage.

There are numerous examples where the biggest spender in a race does NOT win if the competition has adequate resources, and a superior message/candidate.

Yes (in LA-3, the biggest spender up to the General election was David Romero, btw)...the questions are, though: How many people will read that booklet? How many people will find themselves sufficiently informed after reading it? If they see an attack ad about a candidate's stance on, say, abortion, will they just shrug it off and say: The booklet said otherwise? And how long before the election will they receive that booklet? Won't many of them already have made up their minds?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this would have a negative impact, I just don't think it would have a large impact either.
Most people don't vote on TV ads alone, of course, but rather fewer will vote on a government booklet alone.

First, no my suggestion of the phamplet is NOT a panacea, but it will (I base this on comparing states with and without this feature) have a signficant impact.

Second, it also seems to me that public television stations in a state should be required to provide each ballot qualified candidate (not write-ins) with X number of minutes in the weeks before the election.  While this would probably have even less impact than the phamplet, it seems to me to be a reasonable requirement to help offset big money and the lackeys of the liberal media.

We actually have that in Germany.

[WMS]

Who forced the use of primaries? The national parties? And where does it say that the state has to pay for the parties' primaries?

And I don't care so much how the parties choose their convention delegates as long as I don't have to pay for it. The parties can run their own primaries if they want - in 2004 the NM Dems ran their own *president only* primary, at their own expense.

This was actually done in response to voter demands.  The first was down in Western PA at about the turn of the last century.  Now, they are provided for in party rules.

...while shutting out those who aren't in either party or are in minor parties, while still making us pay for them. Not to mention all the ways the two parties discriminate against independents and third party candidates (check the varying signature requirements, for example). Yet more reasons to dislike the two-party system...

[CARLHAYDEN]

I am very sympathetic to the rights of third parties.

We definitely should change laws which discriminate against third parties.

In my state the Libertarians regularly participate in, and occasionally have very competitive, primaries.

I personally favor a system which last time I checked was in effect in Colorado.  Under that system, a candidate can be placed in nomination simply by winning the endorsement of the elected party officials (typically precinct committemen) but can also be placed on the primary ballot by petition.

[WMS]

I am very sympathetic to the rights of third parties.

We definitely should change laws which discriminate against third parties.

In my state the Libertarians regularly participate in, and occasionally have very competitive, primaries.

I personally favor a system which last time I checked was in effect in Colorado.  Under that system, a candidate can be placed in nomination simply by winning the endorsement of the elected party officials (typically precinct committemen) but can also be placed on the primary ballot by petition.

It would help, to be sure. But how about indies?

[CARLHAYDEN]

In many states, the parties choose to allow independents to participate in their primaries.

In the other states, independents should be allowed to nominate candidates by petition for the general election.

[J. J.]

I am very sympathetic to the rights of third parties.

We definitely should change laws which discriminate against third parties.

In my state the Libertarians regularly participate in, and occasionally have very competitive, primaries.

I personally favor a system which last time I checked was in effect in Colorado.  Under that system, a candidate can be placed in nomination simply by winning the endorsement of the elected party officials (typically precinct committemen) but can also be placed on the primary ballot by petition.

It would help, to be sure. But how about indies?

Why should someone who is not part of a group be given rights within that group.  You cannot vote in my alumni elections unless you attended Penn State and joined the Alumni Association.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I agree.

I was just pointing out a system where independents could nominate a candidate of their own via the petition process.

I maintain that the parties should decide whether they want to allow independents to vote in their primary.

[J. J.]

I agree.

I was just pointing out a system where independents could nominate a candidate of their own via the petition process.

I maintain that the parties should decide whether they want to allow independents to vote in their primary.

They do.  In some states it's done by party rules.  In some, like PA, it's done by statute, but the legislature takes care of it.

[WMS]

I agree.

I was just pointing out a system where independents could nominate a candidate of their own via the petition process.

I maintain that the parties should decide whether they want to allow independents to vote in their primary.

They do.  In some states it's done by party rules.  In some, like PA, it's done by statute, but the legislature takes care of it.

But, my point stands: while the parties can decide their own candidates however they like, I think it is wrong that I get taxed to run them! Either the parties pay for their own selection processes or they let the rest of us vote on them.

[J. J.]

I agree.

I was just pointing out a system where independents could nominate a candidate of their own via the petition process.

I maintain that the parties should decide whether they want to allow independents to vote in their primary.

They do.  In some states it's done by party rules.  In some, like PA, it's done by statute, but the legislature takes care of it.

But, my point stands: while the parties can decide their own candidates however they like, I think it is wrong that I get taxed to run them! Either the parties pay for their own selection processes or they let the rest of us vote on them.

Take it up with your state legislators.  The can choose to do it that way.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There are two seperate and distinct concepts.

First, the government 'forced' parties in many areas to employ the 'primary' system to nominate its candidates for public office.  It was not the case (as you seem to believe) that the parties went to the government (at least with respect fo primaries) and said,
'subsidize our candidate selection process,'

However, the Supreme Court has (rightly in my opinion) held that under the concept of freedom of association, the parties cannot be compelled to include non-adherents in its selection process. 

Second, those who choose not to affiliate with a party have themselves (by virtue of their choice) to not participate in the primary election (at least insofar as the nomination of party candidates is concerned).

In conclusion, if you want to have the parties pay for their own nomination process, you have NO right to impose rules/costs on them (i.e. lets go back to the system of one hundred and twenty years ago).

[WMS]

I agree.

I was just pointing out a system where independents could nominate a candidate of their own via the petition process.

I maintain that the parties should decide whether they want to allow independents to vote in their primary.

They do.  In some states it's done by party rules.  In some, like PA, it's done by statute, but the legislature takes care of it.

But, my point stands: while the parties can decide their own candidates however they like, I think it is wrong that I get taxed to run them! Either the parties pay for their own selection processes or they let the rest of us vote on them.

Take it up with your state legislators.  The can choose to do it that way.

Well, that's a lost cause then - they have consistently NOT done things for the greater good of anyone.

[WMS]

There are two seperate and distinct concepts.

First, the government 'forced' parties in many areas to employ the 'primary' system to nominate its candidates for public office.  It was not the case (as you seem to believe) that the parties went to the government (at least with respect fo primaries) and said,
'subsidize our candidate selection process,'

However, the Supreme Court has (rightly in my opinion) held that under the concept of freedom of association, the parties cannot be compelled to include non-adherents in its selection process.

The worst of all worlds, I see - taxation without representation. I knew there was something that felt wrong about this process.

Second, those who choose not to affiliate with a party have themselves (by virtue of their choice) to not participate in the primary election (at least insofar as the nomination of party candidates is concerned).

In conclusion, if you want to have the parties pay for their own nomination process, you have NO right to impose rules/costs on them (i.e. lets go back to the system of one hundred and twenty years ago).

One: I favor runoffs in any event, especially that in many races the primary election is the ONLY contested part of it - Bernalillo County had three County Commission seats open and ALL THREE had primary races only! Pretty pathetic level of democracy.

Two: OK. If they fund their own selection processes they can choose their candidates however they please.

[BobOMac2k2]

I think they should push the dates up, but they shouldn't have them all on one day.

And I hear Illinois wants to move theirs back even further... takes the fun out of living here.

[jokerman]

What's even more interesting is what would have the map looked like if there would have been a national primary.

[BobOMac2k2]

Kerry would have lost, thats for damn sure.