All state primaries on the same day

[J. J.]

The current Primary system has several advantages.

1.  It permits candidates without a lot of money at the to arise.  Well financed candidates, Connelly (R-1980), Gramm (R-1996), Forbes (R-1996), Gore (D-1988), lost.  Some less well financed candidates were, Kerry (D-2004), Clinton (D-1992), Dukakis (D-1988) and Carter (D-1976).

2.  It permits less well known candidates to get their message accross, even if they don't win.  McGovern (D-1972), Carter (1976), Hart, (D-1984), Dukakis (D-1988), Dean (D 2004), and to a lesser extent McCain (R-2000).

3.  It gives the electorate a chance to see how well candidates can organize and respond to adversity.  While not as intense as the presidency, it is still exceptionally intense.

The list goes back to Muskie's tears during NH primary in 1972 and ends with Dean's "AAAAGH" after Iowa in 2004.  Some positive examples are Reagan's NH - 1980, "I'm paying for this microphone," and Clinton's 1992 60 Minutes interview.

[J. J.]

I agree that there are some plusses in the primary system. However, the 2004 example may not be so good. A string of primaries without the Iowa Caucus may well have favored Dean. Caucuses require voters to see their neighbors, and be influenced by them. There is a segment of primary voters who will selected the perceived front-runner if all things are equal between candidates. Media can have the last word in a primary, but not in a caucus.

This, however, is different from the question.  I personally feel that primaries and caucuses test different, but important things.  A caucus tests the ability of a candidates organization at the grass roots level.  Is he a good enough administrator to get his ground game together?  Is he going to inspire volunteers?

Primaries are about, will he inspire voters?  Can he package his message on a more wholesale level?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[J. J.]

Kerry would have lost, thats for damn sure.

And so might have Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  I'm 100% in letting any party limit the choice of who its own candidate will be to its own members.