Out of Control

[Techie2000]

It seems Michigan is the next state (http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/michigan_enacts_midjanuary_pri.html) to engage in primary moving politics to increase its national prominence. This year, it seems every state wants a piece of the early action, and at least on the Democratic side, Chairman Howard Dean is standing his ground and refusing to seat delegations that don't comply with the rules.

Now while I understand the desires of states to raise their prominence in national politics, the early campaigning of this primary and the continual pushing back of the primary dates is quite frankly, out of control. I am glad that the Democratic Party is standing its ground in enforcing the rules it has set for its primary, because I think at the end of the day, by continually moving primary days forward, it is the American people that lose out. The earlier that candidates start, the more money they need to campaign, and that means they are increasingly likely to pander to special interests. What might be good for Florida and Michigan, is certainly not good for America, and not for the Democratic Party.

[cmhbob]

I saw, a few days ago, a suggestion that we hold something like 4 or 5 regional primaries over the course of 4 or 5 months. Think Midwest, South, Northeast, West, and maybe a Southwest or Southeast. The states in each region hold all their presidential primary elections on the same day. It sounded like a great idea at the time, but I wonder if doing that might actually increase the money spent, as candidates spend more time travelling in a smaller region. Hmm.

Then again, I wonder why there isn't one national primary election. Why do we need 50 state primaries?

[damonlab]

As an independent not registered with either party, I think primaries are a joke. Without registering to a particular party, I cannot vote in the primaries. Every person should be able to run on their own merits without having to worry about being an individual put forth by one party or another. I enjoyed watching the last gubernatorial election in California.

[Brazbit]

I miss our old open primary system in this state. I still say the new system is a load or crap.

[Arc]

The primary system in the election process to the White House is a terrible system. And some, especially like the Iowa Caucus, (which isn't really even an election per se are a joke. A farce.) And having as the first primary New Hampshire, a tiny little old North Eastern state is in of itself not de facto bad but when you look at the emphasis and importance placed on it then it becomes a functional joke IMO, despite the seriousness and savvy of the NH voters during the process.

There should be a minimum number of large regional primaries with the largest practical number of states included in each of the primaries. So four or five big ones would be my suggestion. Big states like Texas, California and New York could be split up.

[Brazbit]

Or they could just do them all at once and be done with it. It is a small world and an even smaller nation.

National coverage is no biggy anymore. Why even bother breaking it up. Hell these days you could give a speech in all 50 states in a week or just do one major speech from a Washington D.C. Press Room. They could even take a page out of Perot's book and do a one hour "This is why you should vote for me" infomercial and rebroadcast it several times throughout a day. All their individual in-person speeches are is political hot air and fund raising anyway.

[Arc]

Or they could just do them all at once and be done with it. It is a small world and an even smaller nation.


At first thought that seem reasonable and logical but there is a couple of fatal flaws in a national primary. First there is the matter of name recognition and backing a winner. Early in the race people like Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain and Giuliani have national name recognition. The others do not. One of the way they get recognition is in the major or high profile primaries. Also people love to jump on bandwagons. There are LOTS of people who are really fickle or undecided and once someone wins or does very well in a primary only then do they get behind them. (Jimmy Carer is a text book example of both cases.)

So multiple primaries are good in that situation. Also, as a candidate if you misstep, misspeak, get bad press unfairly, or make a mistake you have a chance to make up for it with multiple primaries.

Also one national primary would be probably be too costly or expensive and travel wise to demanding, especially since the survivor would have to then go the full court presidential campaign trail.

The above aren't the only reasons but are a couple of the main problems IMO.

[cmhbob]

I'm goign to admit to a 20-year-old HS civics-level understanding of the primary and convention system.

Why do we need to have a convention, if we have a primary? What forces a state delegation to cast their votes for whoever won the primary? And if they're required to cast their votes that way, what good does the convention do?

[Steve]

The convention delegates are not legally required to cast their votes in favor of the primary winners. It's exceedingly rare that they do not and I cannot recall immediately any instances where they didn't, but I know it's happened.

[Brazbit]

At first thought that seem reasonable and logical but there is a couple of fatal flaws in a national primary. First there is the matter of name recognition and backing a winner. Early in the race people like Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain and Giuliani have national name recognition. The others do not. One of the way they get recognition is in the major or high profile primaries. Also people love to jump on bandwagons. There are LOTS of people who are really fickle or undecided and once someone wins or does very well in a primary only then do they get behind them. (Jimmy Carer is a text book example of both cases.) Bandwagon voting is probably the best reason to not string them out. You are basically saying the people in the first states to hold primaries are capable of thinking for themselves but nobody else can be trusted to do so. I would much rather eliminate the oportunity for bandwagon voting and force people to vote their conscience rather than following the crowd. I wish they would not release any results until all the polls are closed. I can't begin to tell you how pointless it feels to go to the polls when East coast reults are coming in and the race is already all but decided.

So multiple primaries are good in that situation. Also, as a candidate if you misstep, misspeak, get bad press unfairly, or make a mistake you have a chance to make up for it with multiple primaries. This is the first valid reason for multiple primaries I have heard.

Also one national primary would be probably be too costly or expensive and travel wise to demanding, especially since the survivor would have to then go the full court presidential campaign trail. That is just funny. Only a politician can use more time to prepare as an excuse to be "forced" into spending more money.

[Kluge]

Savvy politicians could use the time spent campaigning for primaries to learn what the people want, since they are actually running for the job of representing the people.

[mikepd]

The entire political process needs to be redone from the ground up. We always get the same politicians dependent on the same lobbyists and anyone who is truly just out for the common citizen can never have the resources to mount a successful campaign.

You either have to be independently wealthy or beholden to corporate interest to some degree if you want to run for office these days. Money is just one of the reasons we will never see a viable third party candidate for President.

I agree with Techie that things are getting out of control and have been for some time.

[Brazbit]

New Primary system: Campaign Survivor

Top winner from each party goes on to compete in.....

New presidential election reality show: America's Next President.

Probably would get the highest voter turnout in decades....

[Techie2000]

I just want to say, that seeing these things getting earlier and earlier, and the rules that are going to come into question, it is my prediction that the 2008 Democratic Convention is going to result in multiple showdowns. Lawyers will be brought in, and we won't know the winner for a significant period of time. Either that, or candidates and influential party members will end up with a compromise candidate. Either way, I don't think that this democratic convention will by any means be boring.