Talk Elections

Now that I live in Iowa, I look forward to having my vote for the nominee actually count next time. I previously lived in Illinois and Virginia. In 1992 (first time I voted), my candidate Tom Harkin dropped out of the race before the Illinois primary, so I switched to Tsongas. This year, Howard Dean was fading fast and had announced he was only campaigning in Wisconsin. So I voted for Kerry in the Virginia primary. (He was my second choice. I thought he was better qualified than Edwards and Clark.)

Before I become too Iowa-centric (just moved to Cedar Rapids in August), I'd like to suggest that the nominees be selected on National Primary Day. In other words, all states vote for a presidential nominee on the same day. To allay fears that the most highly populated states would monopolize the race and favor the candidates with the deepest pockets, allocate the delegates in a system similar to that of the Electoral College but with proportional voting.

I agree with this. Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the entire USA.

It's not in the parties' interest to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree...but it would make conventions a mess--unless you use some sort of transferable vote system--which would set a dangerous precedent for a general election (in which both major parties Definitely Do Not Want transferable vote).

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).

He has a point.
While the current system is pretty strange, a national primary, especially an early one, might well turn out worse.

Iowa is nice because any potential candidate can go there and talk to all 5 people.  It is cheap.  Doing it nationally will cause only rich people to run for president.

But, I'm not one to say how the Democrats should govern themselves.  I just think that for a party that likes to claim they're for the common man, it would be better to not just allow rich people to run for president.

There shouldn't be primaries in the first place.  The parties are private orgs and shouldn't be allowed to use government resources to hold an election for their leaders.  If your local Bridge Club started demanding to have a primary for their leaders we'd all laugh at them and tell them to go away.  We should do the same to the parties.

Frontloading is good, but it has gone way too far, especially in 2004. I say a return to a 1988-ish system, but abolishing all caucuses and making every primary a direct vote primary.

I'd like to see the 1968 schedule restored.

A national primary would be a disaster because the media and television could exert even more force over the primaries.

As for what system I'd like I'd like a mix of primaries, caucii, state conventions, and run-off style elections.

I would be open to the idea of DNC mailing list recipients (the RNC can do the same) being able to elect a slate of about 500 delegates in an online balloting event in the fall/summer before the primaries.

I can't believe so many of you defend the current primary system.

What about the voters disenfranchised because they don't get their primary until after several candidates have dropped out and the nomination effectively decided?

Think about this: What would happen if the general election were like the primary system?  Suppose Election Day were 3 months long, and a small group of states voted each week.  Each week, the votes would be counted and reported, and they would INFLUENCE future results. 

If the Republicans had enough control of the process, they'd make Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina vote first.  The Republican candidate would have SO MUCH momentum that it would bias the news coverage and future voters.  How would you like to be a Democrat in Massachusetts who doesn't get to vote until the Republican candidate already has the 270 electoral votes?

If the Democrats had enough control of the process, they'd make DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and New York vote first.  The Democratic candidate would have SO much momentum that it would bias the news coverage and future voters.  How would you like to be a Republican in Wyoming who doesn't get to vote until the Democratic candidate already has the 270 electoral votes?

I can't believe you people don't find the primary process unfair.

OK, OK, I should quit whining now that I live in Iowa.  In 2008, I'll go to the caucuses and get to impose my choice on the rest of you in New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and Hawaii.  If you don't like my candidate, or if your candidate drops out before you get to vote, TOUGH LUCK!!!  Come on, does that seem fair to you?

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.

I don't know that I would select the 1968 schedule, per se, but I agree with a lot of the above sentiment. I disagree fundamentally with part of jhsu's assumptions about disenfranchised voters. And in fairness jhsu, represents many well intentioned people concerned about the selection of people to high office.

I think that the post-1960 presidential era has caused the electorate to forget what primaries are for. Primaries are NOT just the first phase in two-step runoff system. Yet, for offices up and down the ballot, that is exactly what they have become. If a state like LA wants to have a system like that for elections, I have no problem with that, but that is not the intent of primaries.

Primaries exist as the alternative to party slating of candidates on the ballot. I know in many countries each party determines its candidate (or list for multiseat jurisdictions) and that goes to the general public for the election. Slating is clearly a direct function of a party organization. A primary election is one method for parties to construct their slate for the general election. As such, their intent is to be a function of the parties, not the population as a whole.

As I noted, a primary is only one method by which a party can construct its slate. There are also caucuses, conventions and central committees available to organizations in the various states. Personally I find the IA caucuses a far more healthy exercise for the parties than the NH primary, but that choice is entirely up to the individual state parties.

It's not a matter of fairness, there are some very important practical and political reasons why the system is the way it is.

First of all, as a more moderate Republican, I'm much more comfy with the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire choosing our nominee than the well-intentioned, but nominally misguided, folks in Alabama and Utah.   Iowa and New Hampshire are good centrist states that are representative of the middle ground in the country.  Iowa went for Gore in '00 but Bush in '04, while NH went for Bush in '00 and Kerry in '04.  Sometimes they do wierd things (i.e. Buchannan in 96), but those are usually due to the fact that you have 7 or 8 viable candidates in the race.

The best part is that they are small states.  They are the only chance that we have left for candidates for President to actually have to dirty their fingernails talking to real people and listening to real problems.  A national primary would only serve to infuse more of the problems that we have in the general election with money driving the game and tv ads replacing the stump speeches.

Iowa and New Hampshire is America's "nominating committee" and I am perfectly happy that those states have that very important role.

And closed primaries are adding insult to injury. I mean, the parties are using my tax money to run their primaries, and I, as an Independent, don't even get to vote in them? Isn't that a violation of some law? Either they let me vote or they can run their primaries on their own dime.

In cases where the nomination is NOT sewn up by the time the late primaries occur, then the voters in those states are enormously empowered.  Imagine 1976 Ford vs. Reagan, especially if Reagan had won one more early primary before North Carolina, and the influence held in the late-voting states. So I think the early/late voting thing evens out over time; I disagree that the voters in the late states are "disenfranchised".

I don't like the idea of everyone voting in the primary on the same day. We need to have a period to have buyers' remorse after the first primary day to decide if the front-runner at that time is the one we want to run in November. Let's be honest; how many of us would want to marry the first person we kissed?

Don gave me an idea for cautious reform, actually. Only three states changed hands in 2004, and those include Iowa and New Hampshire, as he points out. One of the standard points of critique is that they're both smalltown, lily-white states - well, the third state to switch hands this year is the second least White in the Nation! New Mexico for first primary of the 2008 primary season!

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.

Even still, using money collected from all taxpayers to fund primaries that only some taxpayers can vote in is BS. The parties should pay for their own primaries if they're closed.

I agreeb with both sentiments. Party delegates should really represent the party. Party selection processes should be financed by the parties. This is one reason I favor caucuses.

For example, every spring after a presidential election there is a race for township offices in IL. These races are partisan, and each party township committee has a choice of a caucus or primary to select their slate for the consolidated election. The township commitee votes for the method, and costs are incurred by the party wither way. Since in IL one can change registration at the polling place, this can matter for contested races.

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.

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.

The Dukakis campaign probably would have done as well with caucuses or primaries. I followed that one quite closely, and more than the other candidates, the Dukakis campaign wooed rank-and-file party leaders. This provided key organizational support. It's not that there were primaries that helped, but rather that the primary campaign was spread out over many months.

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?

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.

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.

Okay, you want a comment on that idea...
While it's certainly not a bad idea, I don't think the effect would be large. They'll still buy TV ads etc as well.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


A good idea, although if you want to cut the costs you're going to have to make the tremendously uncooperative Post Office mail them for free. We kind of have that with the guides the League of Women Voters puts out, although details are scarce and not nearly enough questions are asked.

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.

We actually have that in Germany.

...while shutting out those who aren't in either party or are in minor parties, while still making us pay for them. Not to mention all the ways the two parties discriminate against independents and third party candidates (check the varying signature requirements, for example). Yet more reasons to dislike the two-party system...

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? :)

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.

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.

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.

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).

Well, that's a lost cause then - they have consistently NOT done things for the greater good of anyone. :(

The worst of all worlds, I see - taxation without representation. I knew there was something that felt wrong about this process. :P


One: I favor runoffs in any event, especially that in many races the primary election is the ONLY contested part of it - Bernalillo County had three County Commission seats open and ALL THREE had primary races only! Pretty pathetic level of democracy.

Two: OK. If they fund their own selection processes they can choose their candidates however they please.

I think they should push the dates up, but they shouldn't have them all on one day.

And I hear Illinois wants to move theirs back even further... takes the fun out of living here.

What's even more interesting is what would have the map looked like if there would have been a national primary.

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.

Kerry still would have one New Hampshire and Iowa... probably Illinois too.

I think Dean would have carried IL. Daley had not backed any one candidate and many local township organizations were heavily behind Dean. I reacjed a point in the summer and fall of 2003 that generic Democrat floats in parades only featured Dean.

The only other significant support I saw in late 2003 in IL was for Clark. For those who were uncomfortable with Dean, he was the consensus alternative among Dems here. Given the connections between Daley and many from Clinton's old organization, I would not have been surprised to see a Daley endorsement of Clark. The surprising thing for me was that Clark did not contest IA in the Midwest where a veteran's message plays well (see Kerry).