Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 08, 2016, 11:04:57 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  Let's have a discussion on the best way to go through the primary process.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Let's have a discussion on the best way to go through the primary process.  (Read 1522 times)
Hillary pays minimum wage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 733
United States


View Profile
« on: January 10, 2016, 02:09:36 am »
Ignore

I know the primary process is unlikely to change because the states and parties have the right to decide how their nomination processes work, but how would you all have it work if you were the grand high king of deciding primaries?

My Idea:

Small states- ME, NH, VT, RI, DE, DC, WV, MS, AR, IA, ND, SD, NE, KS, MT, WY, UT, ID, NV, NM, AK, HI. 

These states would vote on the first Tuesday of March for example.

Medium states- CT, MA, MD, WI, MN, MO, KY, SC, AL, LA, OK, CO, OR. 

States of medium population vote the third Tuesday in March again to make sure they have a say.  By doing this, the more expensive states would wait until later which allows candidates who are struggling to make a comeback instead of being forced to drop out after IA or NH.

Large states- There would be 3 groups of states with large populations that would alternate each presidential election cycle.  This way no one always has the final say.  An every other week primary would continue throughout March/April.  If I'm correct, the last Tuesday in April or first Tuesday in May would be the final primary date.

Group 1- OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ
Group 2- NY, IL, PA, VA, WA, AZ
Group 3- CA, TX, FL, IN, TN

The 3 groups above would rotate each election cycle to have more fairness.
Logged
Cold Warrior
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3469
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2016, 07:18:25 pm »
Ignore

Why is Massachusetts with the medium state when it's more or less the same size as Indiana, Arizona, and Tennessee, which are all "big states"?
Logged

Never Trump

Hillary pays minimum wage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 733
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2016, 09:51:10 pm »
Ignore

Why is Massachusetts with the medium state when it's more or less the same size as Indiana, Arizona, and Tennessee, which are all "big states"?

My mistake, then let's throw it in one of the big groups.  What do you guys think of this process?
Logged
Ted Bessell, Bass God of the West
tedbessell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3568


Political Matrix
E: 5.16, S: -3.83

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2016, 09:59:37 pm »
Ignore

Why is Massachusetts with the medium state when it's more or less the same size as Indiana, Arizona, and Tennessee, which are all "big states"?

My mistake, then let's throw it in one of the big groups.  What do you guys think of this process?

It's good, I guess. Do you have a specific reason for organizing them by population?
Logged

Not actually from Ontario.

Trump has made a habit of raising a middle digit to reality, turning that middle digit into a knife, and stabbing reality through the heart.
Hillary pays minimum wage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 733
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2016, 10:27:14 pm »
Ignore

Why is Massachusetts with the medium state when it's more or less the same size as Indiana, Arizona, and Tennessee, which are all "big states"?

My mistake, then let's throw it in one of the big groups.  What do you guys think of this process?

It's good, I guess. Do you have a specific reason for organizing them by population?

Basically to give the smaller states a say and allow less funded candidates a better chance.  Nowadays it comes down to whoever wins IA and NH sparring it out for a month and then the candidate who was predicted to win it anyways wins with the party more divided.  Suddenly things are hushed up and everyone is supposed to get along.  Now the latter will still happen inevitably, but if the smaller states vote first followed by medium states, they're getting their say before money becomes more of a problem. I realize IA, NH, NV, SC are smaller but this format does two more things.  It allows for a long enough time for the less funded candidates to remain because they wouldn't have spent as much money in states like VT and IA and it keeps the primary from going to long.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11955


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2016, 09:28:28 am »

It's a costly proposal for states that only have one primary that combines state and congressional races with the presidential primary. Those states would have to double their spending on primaries. Rotating dates is undesirable for large states that set up an electoral calendar that functions the same every two years.
Logged

Seneca
Full Member
***
Posts: 237


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2016, 09:49:44 pm »
Ignore

Like Muon said, many states would rather not go first for various reasons. With that in mind, I would do the following:

Ask all Secretary of States to volunteer their state to go first. Put those states which volunteer in a hat and pull out four names (1 by 1). Those 4 take the slots of IA, NH, SC, and NV. The rest of the volunteers go on Super Tuesday. The 4 states who went first last cycle are relegated to Super Tuesday to ensure some rotation.

This way candidates have to navigate different landscapes, new voters get to play an outsized role in primary elections, and the good people of Iowa and New Hampshire get a respite from 24/7 campaigning.
Logged
Hillary pays minimum wage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 733
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2016, 08:43:22 pm »
Ignore

Most states wouldn't go for any changed. I meant how would you have it work?
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3355


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2016, 09:30:10 am »
Ignore

Let's make it more democratic.

Let's have a national primary election sometime in late March or early April.  If no candidate receives 50% of vote, advance to a national primary runoff election to be held in late May or early June.  Very much like the French system, except the parties compete separately to select their nominees.     
Logged

͡◔ ᴥ ͡◔
darthebearnc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8205
United States


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2016, 02:17:50 pm »
Ignore

June 1 - Campaigns begin
September 1 - Nationwide primary vote
December 1 - General election
January 1 - Inauguration
Logged

Figueira
84285
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6127


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2016, 03:59:11 pm »
Ignore

June 1 - Campaigns begin
September 1 - Nationwide primary vote
December 1 - General election
January 1 - Inauguration

Sounds good to me. I would only move the primary date a little bit later because September 1 can be an inconvenient time for some people, e.g. college students.
Logged

Note: I am not actually British.

Hillary pays minimum wage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 733
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2016, 10:00:58 pm »
Ignore

A later start to the general election is a good idea too. Make Labor Day the earliest date to run ads.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines