RNC Rules Committee passes major overhaul of primary calendar for 2012
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:49:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  RNC Rules Committee passes major overhaul of primary calendar for 2012
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: RNC Rules Committee passes major overhaul of primary calendar for 2012  (Read 11511 times)
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 02, 2008, 04:21:29 PM »

No idea what's going to happen with this.  Unless several dozen state parties and state legislatures go along with this, is this ever going to work?:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/rnc_rules_committee_passes_ohi_1.php

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

scanned first page of the "Ohio Plan":


Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2008, 09:04:35 PM »

I like it. The Democratic primary need to be done like this too.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2008, 10:30:28 PM »

The only problem I see with this plan is that state populations aren't static and you're going to have to move things around every so often.

Other than that, this plan is far superior to the typical regional rotating primary and it seems pretty fair to me.

The big question will be what the Democrats decide to do.  If they don't attempt any reforms then  I think a lot of states will ignore the Republicans' approved calendar and just vote whenever the Democrats do in order to save money.

It would really be nice if the two parties could at least attempt to work together on this but I doubt it will happen.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2008, 10:33:50 PM »

It'll require more than the national parties working together. The Legislatures, Secretaries of State, state parties are all going to have to somehow work together and agree to make a national calendar work from the bottom up. Because of how incredibly complex and complicated that's going to be, I continue to believe the real solution here is either federal legislation or a constitutional amendment.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2008, 03:39:12 PM »

More on this here:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/republicans_take_step_to_chang.php

There are still a lot of hoops this would have to jump through before it becomes binding.  Another idea being floated by the RNC is to keep everything the same, but shift the cutoff date for losing half your delegates from the first week of Feb. to the first week of March.  That is, right now, states lose 50% of their delegates if they vote before the first week of Feb.  This could be changed to the first week of March.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2008, 06:30:24 PM »

I'm still tired of Iowa and New Hampshire and a handful of states getting a disproportionate say as to who my party will run for president.

National primary please.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2008, 07:54:38 PM »

More on this here:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/republicans_take_step_to_chang.php

There are still a lot of hoops this would have to jump through before it becomes binding.  Another idea being floated by the RNC is to keep everything the same, but shift the cutoff date for losing half your delegates from the first week of Feb. to the first week of March.  That is, right now, states lose 50% of their delegates if they vote before the first week of Feb.  This could be changed to the first week of March.


I'd support this.  And not even as a punitive measure, just say to the states, "You can go early, or you can have more delegates."

As we've seen this year, most states will probably move earlier, but the ones that don't, in case of a tight race, would suddenly see themselves with enormous clout.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2008, 09:09:03 PM »



I've tried to indicate regional primaries within pods.  Numbers are representatives (ie population)

First 4: 4 states, 16 representatives.

Small States: 14 states, DC, plus territories, 25 representatives.

X Pod: 16 states, 126 representatives: Upper Midwest 2, 16; Border 5, 32; South Central 4, 22; Texas 1, 32; West 4, 24.

Y Pod: 9 states, 131 representatives: California-Arizona 2, 61; Upper South 4, 42; Northeast 3, 28.

Z Pod: 7 states, 138 representatives: New York-Pennsylvania 2, 48; Midwest 3, 52; Florida-Georgia 2, 38.

I would swap Indiana and Maryland which are isolated within their pods.  Maryland could be part of the Upper South or the Northeast group.  And Indiana could be Upper Midwest or Border.

The February pods only have about 1/10 of the population, and if SC and NV go on the Saturday after NH candidates will have to devote some time to these states, especially if Nevada switches to a primary.  Better yet would be to have a lottery to decide whether SC and NV go before IA and NH or after.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2008, 09:34:43 PM »

The only problem I see with this plan is that state populations aren't static and you're going to have to move things around every so often.



The moving dates also present a real cost to states like IL that use the presidential primary for the general primary. County clerks would be forced to change the date of the general primary every four years and that impacts a host of other dates like petitions, challenges, etc. When IL moved up the date this year from 3rd Tue Mar to 1st Tue Feb it was with a number of concessions to the clerks to make them agreeable. I don't see how that happens if imposed from the national party.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2008, 01:07:31 AM »

The only problem I see with this plan is that state populations aren't static and you're going to have to move things around every so often.
The moving dates also present a real cost to states like IL that use the presidential primary for the general primary. County clerks would be forced to change the date of the general primary every four years and that impacts a host of other dates like petitions, challenges, etc. When IL moved up the date this year from 3rd Tue Mar to 1st Tue Feb it was with a number of concessions to the clerks to make them agreeable. I don't see how that happens if imposed from the national party.
Maybe they could separate the State primary from the presidential primary, like California did.  California used to have a June primary for both presidential and Statewide elections (RFK was assassinated in June 1968).  Then they kept moving it forward in presidential years, while continuing to hold it in June in non-presidential years.  This year, when they moved the presidential primary to February, they split it from the State primary.  So instead of yoyo-ing back and forth 4 months every two years, the State has one consistent election date for the one where most candidates for office will be running, and a separate date for an election that is not even for State officers, but rather to choose delegates for a private organization's national convention.

One reason that Texas did not move its presidential primary, is that it would have moved all the filing deadlines for all the other offices into the previous year, and the county election people would have been having to updating and mailing out registration cards over the holidays.  One solution that was suggested was to actually open up the filing deadline in October 2007 so the filing period wouldn't be over the holidays.  They also kept finding laws that referred to calendar years that were based on a silly assumption that the preliminaries for an election in November (including some for 2-year terms) would take less than 10 months.

I just checked the primary election dates for some previous elections.  In 1972, New Hampshire had an early March primary.  The next primary was Wisconsin's in early April.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2008, 02:01:23 AM »

The only problem I see with this plan is that state populations aren't static and you're going to have to move things around every so often.
The moving dates also present a real cost to states like IL that use the presidential primary for the general primary. County clerks would be forced to change the date of the general primary every four years and that impacts a host of other dates like petitions, challenges, etc. When IL moved up the date this year from 3rd Tue Mar to 1st Tue Feb it was with a number of concessions to the clerks to make them agreeable. I don't see how that happens if imposed from the national party.
Maybe they could separate the State primary from the presidential primary, like California did.  California used to have a June primary for both presidential and Statewide elections (RFK was assassinated in June 1968).  Then they kept moving it forward in presidential years, while continuing to hold it in June in non-presidential years.  This year, when they moved the presidential primary to February, they split it from the State primary.  So instead of yoyo-ing back and forth 4 months every two years, the State has one consistent election date for the one where most candidates for office will be running, and a separate date for an election that is not even for State officers, but rather to choose delegates for a private organization's national convention.

One reason that Texas did not move its presidential primary, is that it would have moved all the filing deadlines for all the other offices into the previous year, and the county election people would have been having to updating and mailing out registration cards over the holidays.  One solution that was suggested was to actually open up the filing deadline in October 2007 so the filing period wouldn't be over the holidays.  They also kept finding laws that referred to calendar years that were based on a silly assumption that the preliminaries for an election in November (including some for 2-year terms) would take less than 10 months.

I just checked the primary election dates for some previous elections.  In 1972, New Hampshire had an early March primary.  The next primary was Wisconsin's in early April.

Where did you find the information on past dates?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2008, 05:08:36 AM »

I just checked the primary election dates for some previous elections.  In 1972, New Hampshire had an early March primary.  The next primary was Wisconsin's in early April.
Where did you find the information on past dates?
Congressional Quarterly, Presidential Elections Since 1789

I was looking on Abe's Books and they had bunches for under $5 including shipping.  It is published after every election, so you might want to check the year.  I got mine at a library used book sale a few years ago and it only goes through 1972.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2008, 07:34:51 PM »

Didn't John Engler try something like this in 2000, but it got shot down?
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2008, 09:44:39 PM »

Too early.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2008, 05:16:35 AM »

We'll see what happens but McCain/Obama may be seeking re-election in 2012...so one side may have to wait until 2016 to give it a try.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2008, 04:11:45 PM »

It appears to be a well thought out proposal.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2008, 01:36:53 PM »

The Ohio plan is being pushed by conservatives who want more power for smaller states that are less likely to vote for someone like Giuliani:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/post_6.php

Also:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2008, 03:54:45 PM »

Regional primaries are probably better than what we have.
Logged
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2008, 07:47:31 PM »

It's a shame that one's chances for being elected President rests so much on how frequently you can traverse all of Iowa's 99 counties.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2008, 04:35:43 PM »

Ambinder says that on final approval, the Ohio plan went down in flames, by a vote of 39-12:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/rnc_rules_committee_endorses_c.php

If I'm understanding him correctly, the plan that *was* approved would let IA, NH, SC, and NV vote as early as January, but any other state that voted earlier than the first week of *March* (not February) would lose half their delegates.  Of course, several states (like NH, MI, SC, FL....) voted before the RNC approved window in 2008, accepted the 50% delegate penalty, and still played a big role in the primary process for the GOP (in fact, McCain's victories in NH, SC, and FL basically gave him the nomination).  So don't expect the 50% penalty to be much of a deterrent.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2008, 05:06:23 PM »

More:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/rncs_calendar_could_be_chaotic.php

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.051 seconds with 15 queries.