Kick this post if you believe that there should be one single national federal primary day!

THIS IS NOT A RANT AGAINST OBAMA SO PLEASE DON'T READ IT THAT WAY OR BASH ME THAT WAY. THIS IS A RANT AGAINST THE EARLY STATE PRIMARY FAVORITISM THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS:

<rant>

It's time to put an end to the favoritism.

Iowa and New Hampshire are nice states but their citizens should not be the ones limiting the choices for the rest of us!

People act like these early primaries and caucuses are sacred tradition that dates back to the Founding.

The truth is that they are relatively recent in their importance going back to the early 1970's when rules changed.


We need to treat EVERY state like it matters equally. Considering how many Californians, New Yorkers, Texans, and Floridians there are - WHY should we be forced to accept the decision of a handful of Iowans or New Hampshirites to limit our choices to just one or two? There are multiple cities in each of these large states with populations larger than the entire population of Iowa or New Hampshire.

Nor does a "round robin" system make any sense because it doesn't happen in anything like real time. It would take 16 to 32 years to round robin through the country. That is far too long.

The ONLY fair solution that makes every primary voter's vote count equally is to have it on the same day nationwide.

Consider this: What if we had and held the GENERAL election race on a series of different days around the nation? Who amongst us would think that THAT was fair or that it wouldn't lead to reduced choices and participation for the later states?

Again the ONLY fair solution is a SINGLE NATIONAL FEDERAL PRIMARY DAY.

I deserve to choose from among 9 or 10 candidates for President who ALL have equal chances to win when I'm voting for them - not one to three as happened to me this year in Florida because the others had all been forced to drop out for money and "horserace" reasons.

If the vote was held in June nationwide then we'd all get to choose a Kucinich or an Edwards or a Richardson, etc. rather than being told by the MSM that they simply weren't viable and that they must get out of the race and that we shouldn't be considering voting for them.

Instead of the primaries being this horse race / snowball effect type system, there would be real discussion of the issues not who has raised the most money.

All of this is somewhat theoretical for a while for Democrats since Obama is now in likely for 8 years but in 2016 it will be back again.

</rant>

:rant:

Doug D.

:eyes:

I say we just change the states that are the first four every cycle

You get to vote for your choice but I should be allowed MY choice as well. You shouldn't be picking MY President for me in your "retail" shop.

Doug D.

And by the way, the thing about retail politics is that a candidate can visit a smaller state and basically go to every place of the state and talk to so many voters there. It gives a chance for the American voter to see their candidates up close and in person. Also, a national primary would make these smaller states basically meaningless. People would spend all their time in California, FLorida (which would be fine for you), New York, Texas....you get the picture.

It was obvious. Very smart man, gutsy, interesting, provocative. But not the sort of politician who wins Presidential races. This has been proven now twice (has it been only twice that he's run for the Dem. nomination?).

I favor a rotating schedule for the primaries. Some states go first some years, other states go first other years.

There are reasons the Dems don't want all the states deciding on the nominee simultaneously. One of those is that it wouldn't give the small states enough clout. A simultaneous primary vote would virtually ensure that anyone who appeals to Iowa would not get the nomination. Obama would not have. Kerry would not have. Not sure about Gore.

One reason they want a small state to go first is that a small state has a unique opportunity for its citizens to actually meet and get to know the candidates. This is impossible in the large states.

Another reason they want a more controlled primary is so that non-rich candidates can compete. If candidates have to run for the primary in all 50 states, only the wealthiest and most well-connected and "inevitable" candidates would win. Someone like Obama would never have a chance. Someone like Kucinich would never have a chance.

Ironically, it is the small states that give candidates like Kucinich a fighting chance to be the nominee.

and rotate the region that goes first with each presidential election.

That way the candidates stay in a consolidated region until the primary and then move on to the next after the vote. Which translates to more time to meet people and a lot less miles to travel. Everyone gets a kick at the cat instead of the same states setting the pace.

One day for the whole country gives too much power to the richest candidate that can afford the tv time.

:eyes:

But I'm not sure it should be one whole region at a time. For example, if the south had been the first region, we would have had an Edwards/Huckabee race. Or if the northeast had been the first region, it would have possibly been Hillary/Romney.

I say that we have one state from each part of the country. Ideally the smallest state, and the state most hospitable to retail politics.

I further nominate Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon, New Mexico, and South Carolina to be the first states to vote, ideally all at once. Three swing states, a conservative state, and a more liberal state.

(If they all vote on the same day, then there hopefully wouldn't be the Iowa momentum action that currently happens, where the person who wins the first contest is often the nominee. Of course, if one candidate were to win 3, 4, or 5 of the states, then they would probably wind up being the nominee.)

Richardson and Dodd would never have had the money or other resources to run for the nomination in 50 states.

The idea is to give lesser candidates at least a chance.

With like 10 different days and 5 primaries per primary day over 5 months.

An all in one day campaign turns Primaries into a name recognition popularity contest.

David

First of all, 9 out of 10 candidates means frontrunner domination if you simply go by plurality. Now if there's a runoff then that's a different story because the remaining 9 have a shot at second place and the dynamic of the runoff race might be very different.

Secondly to eliminate the money factor the Democratic Party should impose strict primary spending limits. Once we have a presumptive nominee the candidate can raise all of the money they want to use against the Republicans.

Third, there should be nationally televised primary debates just as there are for the general election.

The problem is that if there had simply been a national primary system now, Hillary not only would have won, but she wouldn't have even had to compete. Obama and anybody else that wanted to face her had to win a state in order to prove he was viable and you can't have that mechanism if all of the states vote at the same time. Only after Obama had won Iowa and Hillary had won New Hampshire did we really have an actual contest.

That's why I think the runoff system might work to fix that since the two people that make the runoff will be seen as viable.

I like the concept of forcing candidates to survive retail politics in a few small states before the cash-and-ads blitz of Super Tuesday. If it were a nationwide primary, after all, it would be all about money and name recognition--and this race would have been Giuliani v. Clinton.

June and debate their opponents all over the country a lot of times...

Iowa and New Hampshire short circuit the choices for the rest of us.

fundraising and denting their opponents' lead in the nationwide race. It's only on the state level that you can see any motion whatsoever until very late in the game.

I don't see why the candidate with all the money should win the nomination. :shrug:

It is important to make the candidates spend time all over the US.

In fact, I'd do anything to shorten the "presidential campaign process". It's fine to announce "two years in advance". But then, spend the next year fundraising. NO STUMPING, NO RALLIES. Then in the first 6 months of the election year, candidates can tour the country. All of the states would hold their primaries in June (yes, you could spread it out if you really wanted to). Conventions in August/September, the hard race from September to November... and then it's over.

There's a lot to hate about a primary season from January to June. I like how it forces the candidates to get to each state... but it's grueling. And it takes way too much emphasis off of actual governing of the country.

I really want to see some limits on the window of months during which candidates can make public appearances.

Here's sanity:

None before the second week of January.

Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Nevada get to go first in the second week of January.

After that, states and territories can pick any day they want, from the third week of January until the last week of April. About 16 weeks, about 3-4 a week.

Just because we had a favorable outcome does not mean the process didn't suck ass - it did.

ETA: I could also support the rotating regions idea as well.

... the nomination. The system would be fine now if they rotated which region got to kick things off.

and reforming the media.

:eyes:

Nope. No how. No way.

It's beyond ignorant.

It's more stupid than Bush.

It's beyond brainless.

It is really very simple,, Let's say you have 6 candidates in the GOP and 5 Dems/


The winner is likely not going to get more than 35 or 59%. A strong regional candidate could win in the south Say John Edwards. and an ideologue could win for the GOP, Say Huckabee,


The majority of the party would have voted against the nominee.

Look candidate need to be vetted over the course of the campaign. Front-loaded money or narrow polemic should not determine the nominees. Besides, it would be a campaign driven b by the ability to buy air time. That would be far worse than what we have today.

What we need is one election day a month 9-12 states each month that on a composite basis look like the party as a whole. Once a month, each month from January through March.

with one week AT LEAST in between each single primary.

Kucinich et al. couldn't even get a bit of support in Iowa. What makes you think they'd be competitive anywhere else?

primaries to roll around again.

The fact you did not say "more than a century" shows you must have thought about regional primaries, even though you did not mention them directly.

I'd suggest the 4 regions long used by the US Census (map at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf ):

"U.S. Census Bureau
Census Bureau Regions

Northeast
Midwest (North Central)
South
West"

Because of the ready availability of data on these regions, they could be weighted for electoral fairness and be given unequal probabilities of being chosen randomly in a given cycle. Regions without massive numbers of "disfranchised felons" and with high proportions of same-day registrants and early voters and high turnout/census population ratios could come round much more frequently than every 16 years.

I like it the way it is.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!