States are dropping primaries

[© tweed]

I think we should keep the primaries. It makes the months leading up to the conventions very interesting.

IT isn't fair that the people of Iowa and NH have more power in selecting the president of the US than the other states combined in the primaries.

I like New Hampshire.

Get an NH avatar then.

[Justin]

IT isn't fair that the people of Iowa and NH have more power in selecting the president of the US than the other states combined in the primaries.

I never said it was fair. I said the primaries made the whole process interesting.

[© tweed]

IT isn't fair that the people of Iowa and NH have more power in selecting the president of the US than the other states combined in the primaries.

I never said it was fair. I said the primaries made the whole process interesting.

Okay, I misunderstood what you said.

[Gustaf]

I think we should keep the primaries. It makes the months leading up to the conventions very interesting.

IT isn't fair that the people of Iowa and NH have more power in selecting the president of the US than the other states combined in the primaries.

I like New Hampshire.

Get an NH avatar then.

Hm, maybe I will...I like MN as well though...I was just stating that I liked New Hampshire, I wasn't really making much of a point, if that's what you thought...

[Taft]

I really think it's time to chuck this IA-NH-everyone else system.  I'd personally like to see either a caucuses-first system(IA and other caucuses, followed by NH and other primaries and any remaining caucuses) or a system where IA, NH, and SC go simultaneously, followed by a week or so of calm.  The problem is that Iowa and New Hampshire are way out of balance for their influence, and the fact that New York, California, and all the other big states except MI are now getting the shaft is going to make a mess of 2008...and if California moves into February, expect reforms since someone will hit the roof at that.

[Nation]

To me, it seems like a late Primary (early or mid March) that has ALL (or at least the vast majority) of primaries and caucuses is a much better, much more fair system. The current one really makes no sense to me. Why should Iowa's caucus matter a million times more than the New Jersey primary (held in June)?

[muon2]

The states control their primary dates, and the form. The national parties provide a sanction for the primaries and caucuses. Note how DC set a January primary date this year but was awarded no delegates with that vote.

Personally, I think these are party candidates, so the parties really should control the process. As Washington state did this year, the cost can be put on the parties by letting them hold caucuses. I think if more states did this, the candidates would be more reflective of the party, and a platform created by the party.

[© tweed]

Note how DC set a January primary date this year but was awarded no delegates with that vote.

DC has caucuses coming up, which does award delegates.

[muon2]

Note how DC set a January primary date this year but was awarded no delegates with that vote.

DC has caucuses coming up, which does award delegates.

But DC wanted to go early to highlight  their lack of representation. The DNC wouldn't sanction the event and some candidates didn't choose to be listed on that ballot. They still get their delegates at the later date.

[zachman]

Being from NH I am of course a huge suppurtor of Iowa and NH coming first. I disagree strongly with Terry McCaulife's strategy to have the condensed schedule, although I think the selection of Feb 3d states were a good move for the party. Our primary should have been at least a week later than it was, as  most of our voters could not compare and contrast the candidates by watching them in post-Iowa town hall meetings. I also think seven states was a bit too many for mini super Tuesday.

This year's schedule is better than the 2000 schedule for both parties. The republican primaries between SC and super Tuesday were insignificant. There should be a primary every few days, to create a constant news story. I can't believe that after NH in the 2000 democratic primary there was not a single primary until super Tuesday.

I'd like to see a third type of election type for the nomination to add more varuety. The candidates can assign a 1 for first place, 2 for 2nd, and 3 for 3rd place. A 3rd place vote gets 1 point, 2nd gets 2 points, 1st place gets 3 points. Voters do not have to vote for all three.

[Posterity]

Political parties should hold their own primary elections and schedule it for whenever they want -- and the party should pay for it themselves.  There's no reason why non-members of a party should pay for the party's primary election.

[??????????]

Eliminate all primaries and go back to using the conventions for what they are for. Lets get the party bosses back to work!

[© tweed]

Political parties should hold their own primary elections and schedule it for whenever they want -- and the party should pay for it themselves.  There's no reason why non-members of a party should pay for the party's primary election.

If you did that everyone would registered independent.

[ATFFL]

Political parties should hold their own primary elections and schedule it for whenever they want -- and the party should pay for it themselves.  There's no reason why non-members of a party should pay for the party's primary election.

I agree 100%!!!!

I agree 95%.  The states should still administer the election to ensure that it is fair and not a party fix job.

[© tweed]

And the problem with that is...?

There would be no money for the primaries.

[muon2]

And the problem with that is...?

There would be no money for the primaries.

IL is considered a primary state, but at the township level it is optional. The state sets a date and each party in each township can either run a primary or hold a caucus. The purpose is to nominate a slate of township officers. Parties hold caucuses because its a lot cheaper.

In my township, every four years each party holds its caucus. The township GOP rents the local VFW for one evening and volunteers from the precinct committeemen check the registration lists according to state law. There's always a lawyer and parlimentarian kept around in case of questions. All in all it's smooth and inexpensive.

[© tweed]

Why should independents be forced to pay for primaries in which they are excluded?

It's not that they should, but I don't see an alternate solution.

[© tweed]

Let them vote, maybe?

How about a national primary day, where both parties have their primaries?

[Reignman]

Kerry only won the campaign because he won Iowa.  I think there should have been caucuses in every state (many undecided voters) at the same time and then the field would be whittled down to four.  Then you'd have a primary to bring the number down to two, and then a final one.  When Kerry won Iowa, New Hampshire went from Dean to Kerry because the Dems wanted to rally behind their leader.  This made it especially hard for Edwards to win the nomination even though he was a better campaigner, and got more Independents, Republicans, and Dean supporters.

[Posterity]

Political parties should hold their own primary elections and schedule it for whenever they want -- and the party should pay for it themselves.  There's no reason why non-members of a party should pay for the party's primary election.

If you did that everyone would registered independent.

Why?  People would still want to be a member of the party that represented their ideological views.

And there would be money for the primaries -- primaries would be paid for by donations made by members of the party.  Also, a party could conceivably hold it's primary elections on the internet or by mail, which could be done at very little cost.

The state doesn't need to be involved to ensure a fair and accurate primary election.  The party can take it upon themselves to make sure it's fair.  If not, members will defect and the party would fold.  It's in the best interest of the party to ensure it's primary elections are fair and accurate.  Case in point:  the state does not get involved in corporate elections where the shareholders vote to elect members of the board of directors.  Political parties could operate very similiarly.

As a side note, here in AZ registered independents can vote in the primaries for statewide offices, but not in the presidential primaries.