Single Day Primary vs Current System
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:44:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Single Day Primary vs Current System
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Single Day Primary vs Current System  (Read 6881 times)
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,682
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 27, 2016, 03:06:15 PM »

What would be some advantages and disadvantages of each?
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2016, 04:21:29 PM »

Same Day
Disadvantages:
-One could literally win on name recognition
-No retail campaigning
-Everyone would hide out in CA or TX
-Alaska's vote would never matter
-Nobody would get anywhere close to a majority

Current
Disadvantages:
-long
-boring


Neither has any advantages.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2016, 04:30:25 PM »

Single Day A: Less expensive, gets the job done quickly, very exciting.
Single Day D: Reflects the primary only at one time, doesn't reward strong, continuous campaigns. Likely no one gets a majority (since winnowing the field won't be a thing)

Current A and D: Basically the opposite of what I just typed.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2016, 10:48:47 AM »

Same Day
Disadvantages:
-One could literally win on name recognition
-No retail campaigning
-Everyone would hide out in CA or TX
-Alaska's vote would never matter
-Nobody would get anywhere close to a majority

Current
Disadvantages:
-long
-boring


Neither has any advantages.

Advantage surely lmao.

Never really know why American assume that a popular vote would mean you would easily win if you dithered around in LA for a bit. I mean ... that doesn't hold much logic tbh.
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2016, 11:11:13 AM »

Same Day
Disadvantages:
-One could literally win on name recognition
-No retail campaigning
-Everyone would hide out in CA or TX
-Alaska's vote would never matter
-Nobody would get anywhere close to a majority

Current
Disadvantages:
-long
-boring


Neither has any advantages.

Advantage surely lmao.

Never really know why American assume that a popular vote would mean you would easily win if you dithered around in LA for a bit. I mean ... that doesn't hold much logic tbh.

I mostly meant that all/most campaigning would be huge, sweeping ad campaigns since even rallies would be a waste of time.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2016, 11:16:14 AM »

I think it would be good. It would reward building coalitions and allies who can stump for you, and be a damper on personality cults like Trump. Stick an IRV as well, and you could have a majority and a bit more peace.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2016, 11:30:41 AM »

Yeah my pref would also be a nationwide one day IRV vote. Just cut to the chase already. We have too much and too long of a drama as it is.
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2016, 11:39:57 AM »

Nope, I prefer the long slog.  It does provide opportunities for the initially unknown to build support and it also for the overrated to stumble.  It's an endurance test.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2016, 12:48:36 PM »

I'd rather we have the first four still exist in some fashion followed by every other state in a Super Tuesday-type event.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2016, 04:44:01 AM »

Yeah my pref would also be a nationwide one day IRV vote.

I'd actually be curious to know who would have won a nationwide IRV vote on the Republican side this year.
Logged
BuckeyeNut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2016, 09:58:33 AM »

I personally would favor a one-and-done system. That said, the primary should probably in April. Plenty of time for retail campaigning, especially when you have people announcing in March the year before.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2016, 01:00:21 AM »

Nope, I prefer the long slog.  It does provide opportunities for the initially unknown to build support and it also for the overrated to stumble.  It's an endurance test.

Seriously. If you only want to have machine candidates with tons of money, go for a one and done.

I personally would favor a one-and-done system. That said, the primary should probably in April. Plenty of time for retail campaigning, especially when you have people announcing in March the year before.

Retail campaigning is useless in states of above 5 mil, lets say. Especially if you have to cover 50 at once.

Underdogs would never, ever, EVER have the money necessary to mount a simultaneous 50 state campaign.

Frankly, I think every single state should go one at a time. No super tuesdays. no clusters. One. At. A. Time.
Logged
BuckeyeNut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2016, 07:43:49 AM »

The long slog is one reason why we have such abyssmal participation, you do realize. People get fed up of it being a constant focus of the news cycle and inevitably just stop caring as much as they would otherwise. Just look at Canada.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2016, 08:21:40 AM »

The long slog is one reason why we have such abyssmal participation, you do realize. People get fed up of it being a constant focus of the news cycle and inevitably just stop caring as much as they would otherwise. Just look at Canada.

Looking at Canada I see a substantial difference in the lack of primaries to select the party nominees. That alone makes for a much shorter campaign. However, I don't think the US public wants a return to nomination by party elites - just look at the debate over Dem superdelegates.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2016, 07:06:44 PM »

The long slog is one reason why we have such abyssmal participation, you do realize. People get fed up of it being a constant focus of the news cycle and inevitably just stop caring as much as they would otherwise. Just look at Canada.

Looking at Canada I see a substantial difference in the lack of primaries to select the party nominees. That alone makes for a much shorter campaign. However, I don't think the US public wants a return to nomination by party elites - just look at the debate over Dem superdelegates.

This.

I don't realize that at all, Buckeye. In fact I quite disagree.

Also, we didn't seem to have abysmal participation in 08 on the Dems side, and participation has held fairly steady in the backfield this cycle. 

Frankly, without Super Tuesday and March 15, I think participation would have been enhanced (at least on Sanders' side).
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2016, 10:37:58 PM »

I would like single day top two primaries, so then voters get to learn more about those top two.
Logged
BuckeyeNut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2016, 11:33:59 PM »

The long slog is one reason why we have such abyssmal participation, you do realize. People get fed up of it being a constant focus of the news cycle and inevitably just stop caring as much as they would otherwise. Just look at Canada.

Looking at Canada I see a substantial difference in the lack of primaries to select the party nominees. That alone makes for a much shorter campaign. However, I don't think the US public wants a return to nomination by party elites - just look at the debate over Dem superdelegates.

This.

I don't realize that at all, Buckeye. In fact I quite disagree.

Also, we didn't seem to have abysmal participation in 08 on the Dems side, and participation has held fairly steady in the backfield this cycle. 

Frankly, without Super Tuesday and March 15, I think participation would have been enhanced (at least on Sanders' side).
Correlation may not equal causation, but the data isn't on your side.

The US has an inordinately long election process that people hate. Our neighbors to the north, and our chums across the pond, both have far shorter election processes and greater turnout overall.

There's a study I'm looking for that further corroborates this idea, but I cannot find ATM. Hopefully, I can post it sometime in the near future.

Also, nowhere did I advocate for more involvement from party elites in choosing the nominee.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2016, 12:08:43 PM »

The long slog is one reason why we have such abyssmal participation, you do realize. People get fed up of it being a constant focus of the news cycle and inevitably just stop caring as much as they would otherwise. Just look at Canada.

Looking at Canada I see a substantial difference in the lack of primaries to select the party nominees. That alone makes for a much shorter campaign. However, I don't think the US public wants a return to nomination by party elites - just look at the debate over Dem superdelegates.

This.

I don't realize that at all, Buckeye. In fact I quite disagree.

Also, we didn't seem to have abysmal participation in 08 on the Dems side, and participation has held fairly steady in the backfield this cycle. 

Frankly, without Super Tuesday and March 15, I think participation would have been enhanced (at least on Sanders' side).
Correlation may not equal causation, but the data isn't on your side.

The US has an inordinately long election process that people hate. Our neighbors to the north, and our chums across the pond, both have far shorter election processes and greater turnout overall.

There's a study I'm looking for that further corroborates this idea, but I cannot find ATM. Hopefully, I can post it sometime in the near future.

Also, nowhere did I advocate for more involvement from party elites in choosing the nominee.

I understand that you did not advocate for more involvement from the elites. However, one of the biggest drivers of the long election process is the very public primary. A public primary requires a lot of advance organizing and campaigning, since most candidates start only known to party insiders or political groupies like us.

Other countries avoid the lengthy campaigns by letting the party pick their nominees from the inside. That inherently leads to party elites picking a nominee, unless one wants a public primary that is entirely driven by whichever candidate has the best name ID before the election cycle starts. I don't think Obama would be president today but for the long primary season.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2016, 01:23:49 PM »

People also don't like Congress and taxes, but they're better and more representative than the alternative.
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2016, 11:12:18 PM »

Correlation may not equal causation, but the data isn't on your side.

The US has an inordinately long election process that people hate. Our neighbors to the north, and our chums across the pond, both have far shorter election processes and greater turnout overall.

There's a study I'm looking for that further corroborates this idea, but I cannot find ATM. Hopefully, I can post it sometime in the near future.

I think the greater turnout in Canada and Britain has more to do with the fact that they have more parties to choose from and the range of political ideas up for debate is wider. In continental Europe, turnout is even harder, and I would guess part of that is due to the fact that they have proportional representation, meaning nearly everyone's vote actually counts.

That's not to say the long drawn-out process isn't part of it, but there's a middle ground between the current system and consolidating all primaries to one day.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2016, 02:30:46 PM »

I would prefer single day primaries but later in the election season; the first Tuesday of May would work well (before summer vacation for schoolchildren and allowing a full six months for the general election campaign). The primary season wouldn't be any shorter; in fact usually the nominations are decided before then so it would lengthen it more often than not. This would also ensure that every vote counted equally, as opposed to the current system where Iowa and New Hampshire in particular have inordinate influence. Larger states wouldn't necessarily dominate campaign attention or appearances, any more than larger cities dominate attention or appearances in statewide races.

All open primaries to maximize participation.

All proportional allocation of delegates. If no candidate receives a majority, a contested convention is the result. Delegates bound to their candidate on the first ballot but all released on a second ballot or later. This would ensure that the nominee would be broadly acceptable to the party and a candidate couldn't win the nomination with only plurality support of the voters.

If I had my druthers, I would design the general election in a similar fashion. All electoral votes allocated proportionally, and if no one achieves a majority, revote until one candidate gets to a majority.

This system would result in the best balance IMO between giving all of the people an equal voice but also having a check and balance against candidates winning with a plurality of committed supporters against a divided field (in either the primaries or the general).
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,563
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2016, 12:10:23 PM »

Had they had this this year with preferential voting I think it would have been one of Rubio or Bush, Cruz or Trump.  You have to remember that you wouldn't have had Bush or other candidates dropping out early so they'll play more of a role than in reality.  It would all go down to who finished third after preferences:  I imagine that the last three candidates standing would have been an establishment-type person (Rubio or Bush depending on when the thing was, Kasich was behind for most of the campaign so he wouldn't have been there at the end but his votes I assume would have flowed this way), Cruz or another true believer and Trump who was ahead for all of the campaign so I can't imagine he's fall behind with this system.  The question is where do these votes of the third placed person go: voters seem to have been a lot less anti-Trump than politicians were so I think that he might have a shot of picking up preferences from people, especially if it got down to a Cruz/Trump showdown.  If that was the case as it was in reality then I think that you'd have lots of exhausted votes...

It wouldn't work without preferential voting or a second round; since then you'd either have nominees elected on 25% of the vote with the rest scattering or every election decided at the convention anyway so what's the point.  You could keep the delegate system but honestly what's the point; if you have a one-day election then do it by popular vote!

You'd have a very different campaign with this system; no reason to drop out since there's only one primary and some campaigns might try and get second or third preferences or perhaps even tell their supporters how to vote further down the ballot.
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,688
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2016, 01:58:22 AM »

A disadvantage of the current system that no one mentioned is that it makes states like Iowa and New Hampshire and also the ST states obscenely powerful, and states like New Jersey and New Mexico basically irrelevant.

I would prefer a staggered primary calendar similar to the current one, but where the order of states is determined by lottery - for instance, one year California's primary would be randomly selected for February, four years later, it'd be in June.  Have a third party certify the lottery results like the NBA Draft.

A top-two runoff primary like others have mentioned is an acceptable option, but it still puts too much of an emphasis on fundraising and name recognition.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2016, 09:24:51 AM »

I would not like this unless there were a runoff if the top vote-getter did not get 50%.
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2016, 12:23:50 AM »

I would not like this unless there were a runoff if the top vote-getter did not get 50%.

If we do this, it would be best to use instant runoff voting.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 13 queries.