All state primaries on the same day

[CARLHAYDEN]

First of all, the concept that delegates to the national political party convention should always be selected by primaries, is an idea with which I totally disagree.

Please note that the Democrat party purposefully has 'superdelegates' who are NOT selected in a primary for the express purpose of adding a little maturity to the process.

Second, a drawn out selection process for the nominee for a political party's nomination for President is a good thing, since it provides time for the voters to get a better perspective on the prospective candidates. 

Third, having the primaries spread over a period of time, diminishes the advantage of a candidate supported by the financiers of elections, and gives other candidates an opportunity to emerge based on factors such as: (1) message, (2) volunteer efforts, and (3) candidate qualities.

Fourth, there is a valid criticism that the current selection process favors northern states in the winnowing process, for which I have a solution.

To select the best candidates, national parties would be well advised to follow the following rules:

1.) Only one state shall be allowed to slect delegates selection in a given region (north, south, midwest, west) on a given date.

2.) The smaller states (grouped by category). should be given preference in the selection of a given preference in the selection of a date for the selection process.

3.) Only jurisdictions (states, DC, territories) that have four or fewer U.S. Representatives should be allowed to have their delegatel selection  in January (or later if they choose) of Presidential Election years.

4.) States with five, but less than nine Representatives, may have their delegate selection no earlier than the month of February  of Presidential Election years.

5.) States with nine, but less than eighteen Representatives may have their delegate selection no earlier than month of March of Presidential Election years.

6.) States with eighteen, but less than twenty-two Representatives in Congress may have theirl delegate selection no earlier than April of Presidential election years.

7.) States with twenty-two, but less than forty-four Representatives in Congress, may have their  delegate selection process no earlier than May of Presidential Election years.

8.) States with forty-four or more Representatives in Congress may select their delegates no earlier than June of Presidential election years.

To avoid this post becoming too long, I will list the jurisdictions by region in a seperate post (presuming there is a demand therefor).

[CARLHAYDEN]

First of all, the concept that delegates to the national political party convention should always be selected by primaries, is an idea with which I totally disagree.

Please note that the Democrat party purposefully has 'superdelegates' who are NOT selected in a primary for the express purpose of adding a little maturity to the process.

Second, a drawn out selection process for the nominee for a political party's nomination for President is a good thing, since it provides time for the voters to get a better perspective on the prospective candidates. 

Third, having the primaries spread over a period of time, diminishes the advantage of a candidate supported by the financiers of elections, and gives other candidates an opportunity to emerge based on factors such as: (1) message, (2) volunteer efforts, and (3) candidate qualities.

Fourth, there is a valid criticism that the current selection process favors northern states in the winnowing process, for which I have a solution.

To select the best candidates, national parties would be well advised to follow the following rules:

1.) Only one state shall be allowed to slect delegates selection in a given region (north, south, midwest, west) on a given date.

2.) The smaller states (grouped by category). should be given preference in the selection of a given preference in the selection of a date for the selection process.

3.) Only jurisdictions (states, DC, territories) that have four or fewer U.S. Representatives should be allowed to have their delegatel selection  in January (or later if they choose) of Presidential Election years.

4.) States with five, but less than nine Representatives, may have their delegate selection no earlier than the month of February  of Presidential Election years.

5.) States with nine, but less than eighteen Representatives may have their delegate selection no earlier than month of March of Presidential Election years.

6.) States with eighteen, but less than twenty-two Representatives in Congress may have theirl delegate selection no earlier than April of Presidential election years.

7.) States with twenty-two, but less than forty-four Representatives in Congress, may have their  delegate selection process no earlier than May of Presidential Election years.

8.) States with forty-four or more Representatives in Congress may select their delegates no earlier than June of Presidential election years.

To avoid this post becoming too long, I will list the jurisdictions by region in a seperate post (presuming there is a demand therefor).

If you added on the caveat that not more than one state from a given region could have delegate selection on the same date (to avoid tilting the system to a candidate from a particular region) then 29 of the 51 'states' (I include DC) could have used the actual dates they used in the Democrat calender for 2004 under my system.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, it is in the interest of the nation that no particular region and or ideology be given a special advantage either in the winnowing or ultimate selection process.

Second, it is the interest of the nation that candidates actually have to meet with real people in their quest for the nomination, and not simply be selected by big money and big media.

So, it is desireable that the initial stages of the selection process be reserved for the small states and that no region be given preference.  It also seems to me that where a primary is involved, it should be closed at least to the extent that adherents of other parties should NOT be allowed to participate in the nomination of another party's delegates to the national party convention.

One practice which occurs in some state (and I would advise for all) is that a candidate, whether for nomination (primary) or election (general/special) who has qualified to be listed on the ballot, should be allowed (for a minimal price) to make a brief statement of rational of candidacy in a phamphlet to be printed and distributed by the election authorities to all eligible voters.  This would, at least in part, curtail the excessive influence of money and media in the political process.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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.

Muon2,

Turnout has been a major factor for a long time whether in primaries or caucuses where only a small percentage of the potential electorate actually participates.

I cann't say I am particuarly impressed by 'mass' communications, as there are many problems with this system (the requirement of a great deal of money for some candidates, and the 'favor' or the media for others).

The candidate/message you see/hear via the mass media isn't necessary the 'real deal.' 

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).