Reasons for keeping early primaries?

[Farang]

It seems obvious that having Iowa and New Hampshire primaries early makes little sense, as both states are unrepresentative of the country as a whole and many people are left out of the election process.

I think one important advantage is that these early primaries get rid of early spoilers. For example, in a national primary we'd still have Biden and Dodd to take away votes from, presumably, Barack Obama. This is bad for the Democrats because it doesn't mean Hillary is the best candidate if 60% of Democrats are voting anti-Hillary.

This came to mind going into New Hampshire, where John Edwards and Bill Richardson are continuing, eating up 25% of support. If both are knocked out going into Super Tuesday (I assume Edwards won't give in, though) then we can have a more effective vote.

I should actually have used the Republicans as an example, with the field as split as it is, a national primary for them would be very ineffective. So maybe the best solution is rotating the early primary states?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Farang
It seems obvious that having Iowa and New Hampshire primaries early makes little sense, as both states are unrepresentative of the country as a whole and many people are left out of the election process.

I think one important advantage is that these early primaries get rid of early spoilers. For example, in a national primary we'd still have Biden and Dodd to take away votes from, presumably, Barack Obama. This is bad for the Democrats because it doesn't mean Hillary is the best candidate if 60% of Democrats are voting anti-Hillary.

This came to mind going into New Hampshire, where John Edwards and Bill Richardson are continuing, eating up 25% of support. If both are knocked out going into Super Tuesday (I assume Edwards won't give in, though) then we can have a more effective vote.

I should actually have used the Republicans as an example, with the field as split as it is, a national primary for them would be very ineffective. So maybe the best solution is rotating the early primary states?

Its interesting that people say that because people are voting for other candidates that they like, that they must be voting against Hillary. That's not very good reasoning. In multipolar elections (ie. more then 2) with low stakes people tend to vote for who they like the best. In bipolar ones, and ones with high stakes they tend to vote more strategically. In these cases you will see the anti-hillary vote coalesce into a single candidate. So no, you can't say that 60% are voting against Hillary.

That being said, Iowa and NH are terrible choices for early primaries as it gives disproportionate influence to states that are terribly unrepresentative of the US electorate. That being said the people with the influence to change that, the people in the house and senate, have quite a few presidential hopefuls among them. If they try to force Iowa and NH out of the early primaries and fail to do so, they're screwed when it comes to election time. That's why nobody pushes for it.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Farang
It seems obvious that having Iowa and New Hampshire primaries early makes little sense, as both states are unrepresentative of the country as a whole and many people are left out of the election process.

I think one important advantage is that these early primaries get rid of early spoilers. For example, in a national primary we'd still have Biden and Dodd to take away votes from, presumably, Barack Obama. This is bad for the Democrats because it doesn't mean Hillary is the best candidate if 60% of Democrats are voting anti-Hillary.

This came to mind going into New Hampshire, where John Edwards and Bill Richardson are continuing, eating up 25% of support. If both are knocked out going into Super Tuesday (I assume Edwards won't give in, though) then we can have a more effective vote.

I should actually have used the Republicans as an example, with the field as split as it is, a national primary for them would be very ineffective. So maybe the best solution is rotating the early primary states?

A national primary would cause numerous problems.

It would be more expensive, likely more expensive than the General Election.

It would lessen the number of candidates who would run.

It would limit the number of candidates who could feasibily run.

 

[Farang]

I don't mean all 60% would vote Obama but I think he would get a higher share of the votes from candidates who drop out.

Good points on a national primary being expensive.. would you agree that a rotating early primary might be the best solution?

edit: Actually with rotating primaries, if you get California as the first state that would also cause problems when it comes to cost. So maybe sparsely populated states like Iowa are best.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Farang
I don't mean all 60% would vote Obama but I think he would get a higher share of the votes from candidates who drop out.

Good points on a national primary being expensive.. would you agree that a rotating early primary might be the best solution?

edit: Actually with rotating primaries, if you get California as the first state that would also cause problems when it comes to cost. So maybe sparsely populated states like Iowa are best.

I think the best arguments against early primaries are the ones that highlight the fact that such a small percentage of the population has such a large influence over what candidates are available. I mean its very difficult to get elected without promising more corn subsidies... is this really an issue that Americans care about? I'm guessing no.

I think a rotating primary is a great idea. Someone has to go first, and so why not move it around so everyone has a chance at being the most courted? Expense should be a secondary consideration (within reason) to having a primary that is truly representative.

 

[nageov3t]

Iowa sucks and can go ahead and get bent.

I'm a big fan of the rotating regional system that was proposed... the problem is, how do you implament it when every state is doing it's own thing regardless of what the national party is pushing?

and doesn't NH have it written into its state constitution that it has to be the first primary or something?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
Iowa sucks and can go ahead and get bent.

I'm a big fan of the rotating regional system that was proposed... the problem is, how do you implament it when every state is doing it's own thing regardless of what the national party is pushing?

and doesn't NH have it written into its state constitution that it has to be the first primary or something?

That doesn't really matter... supremacy clause.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
Iowa sucks and can go ahead and get bent.

I'm a big fan of the rotating regional system that was proposed... the problem is, how do you implament it when every state is doing it's own thing regardless of what the national party is pushing?

and doesn't NH have it written into its state constitution that it has to be the first primary or something?

That doesn't really matter... supremacy clause.

Except for the fact, the Federal Govt doesnt control elections.

The courts have ruled time and time again, that elections are states jurisdictions. The only time the feds can step in and make laws, are to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters.

But primaries ARE NOT under government jurisidiction, beyond the point you have to register with the state to be involved in one. The Govt, really has no say in primaries, primaries are under the control of the parties, and their state parties. And state parties don't always agree with the National Party, look at Florida as an example.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!


As far as I'm concerned people need to STFU about Iowa and NH. Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.


Oh and don't forget....




WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!



:roll:

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.

rotating regional ftw.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.

rotating regional ftw.

You'd have to get all 100 state parties(50 states x 2), to agree to it. The Fed cannot pass a law creating, nor can the individual states.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!


As far as I'm concerned people need to STFU about Iowa and NH. Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.


Oh and don't forget....




WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!



:roll:

What kind of stupid response is this, everything in politics is about grievances and resolving them so why don't you take that response and apply it to every issue we face and see where it gets you?

Don't like the war in Iraq? WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Think social security is broken? WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Don't like blacks sitting in the back? WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Don't like King George taxing you without representation? WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.

rotating regional ftw.

Nope. You'd never get states to agree on regions and schedules.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!


As far as I'm concerned people need to STFU about Iowa and NH. Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.


Oh and don't forget....




WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!



:roll:

What kind of stupid response is this, everything in politics is about grievances and resolving them so why don't you take that response and apply it to every issue we face and see where it gets you?

Don't like the war in Iraq? WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Think social security is broken? WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Don't like blacks sitting in the back? WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Don't like King George taxing you without representation? WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

:roll: Well, I happen to think the whole premise of your OP sucks and shows how little you know about NH and Iowa - not to mention the "election process". It just smacks of whining so I believe my response was appropriate.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Except for the fact, the Federal Govt doesnt control elections.

The courts have ruled time and time again, that elections are states jurisdictions. The only time the feds can step in and make laws, are to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters.

But primaries ARE NOT under government jurisidiction, beyond the point you have to register with the state to be involved in one. The Govt, really has no say in primaries, primaries are under the control of the parties, and their state parties. And state parties don't always agree with the National Party, look at Florida as an example.

Whoops, you're right.

 

[Lemon law]

I do agree that having small states like Iowa and New Hampshire first tend to be a bad idea.

As a primary system reform, it might be better to group sets of small and larger states together starting later and finishing slightly later. That way, week by week, we could get a more accurate picture of across the board candidate appeal. And some years and at random, big states like California should be in the middle and other years near the end.

I would also like to see Federal campaign spending limits and also limits on how early the spending can begin in early States.

I am sure Iowan's are damn glad to get their normal commercials back and be able to use their phones again. In short their lives can go back to normal as the hoards of locusts finally fly away to pester some one else.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!


As far as I'm concerned people need to STFU about Iowa and NH. Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.


Oh and don't forget....




WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!



:roll:

What kind of stupid response is this, everything in politics is about grievances and resolving them so why don't you take that response and apply it to every issue we face and see where it gets you?

Don't like the war in Iraq? WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Think social security is broken? WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Don't like blacks sitting in the back? WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Don't like King George taxing you without representation? WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

:roll: Well, I happen to think the whole premise of your OP sucks and shows how little you know about NH and Iowa - not to mention the "election process". It just smacks of whining so I believe my response was appropriate.

Actually I was bringing up the positives of the Iowa and NH primaries and asking what some others were because we hear so much about how they are unfair. Then I suggested that maybe the best way to solve the problem and be fair to everyone is to have a rotating early primary. You then come in an offer your opinion but frame it like a jackass. If you do that, nobody takes you seriously and you don't contribute anything to the discussion.

Apparently this makes my argument better so let me just add... :roll: WHAAAA!!!

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I do agree that having small states like Iowa and New Hampshire first tend to be a bad idea.

As a primary system reform, it might be better to group sets of small and larger states together starting later and finishing slightly later. That way, week by week, we could get a more accurate picture of across the board candidate appeal. And some years and at random, big states like California should be in the middle and other years near the end.

I would also like to see Federal campaign spending limits and also limits on how early the spending can begin in early States.

I am sure Iowan's are damn glad to get their normal commercials back and be able to use their phones again. In short their lives can go back to normal as the hoards of locusts finally fly away to pester some one else.

The courts have already ruled you cannot limit the amount of money a person spends on a campaign. Nor can you limit the times they can campaign. Both fall under the 1st amendment.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Except for the fact, the Federal Govt doesnt control elections.

The courts have ruled time and time again, that elections are states jurisdictions. The only time the feds can step in and make laws, are to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters.

But primaries ARE NOT under government jurisidiction, beyond the point you have to register with the state to be involved in one. The Govt, really has no say in primaries, primaries are under the control of the parties, and their state parties. And state parties don't always agree with the National Party, look at Florida as an example.

Whoops, you're right.

Is there really no way for this to be done? I mean even if one legislative act can't make it happen, what would the process be to get these kind of reforms?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Except for the fact, the Federal Govt doesnt control elections.

The courts have ruled time and time again, that elections are states jurisdictions. The only time the feds can step in and make laws, are to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters.

But primaries ARE NOT under government jurisidiction, beyond the point you have to register with the state to be involved in one. The Govt, really has no say in primaries, primaries are under the control of the parties, and their state parties. And state parties don't always agree with the National Party, look at Florida as an example.

Whoops, you're right.

Is there really no way for this to be done? I mean even if one legislative act can't make it happen, what would the process be to get these kind of reforms?

For primaries?

There really isnt a way the govt can do it. It would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

The only way to reform the primary system is to get the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and their 50 state parties to mutually agree to do it.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Except for the fact, the Federal Govt doesnt control elections.

The courts have ruled time and time again, that elections are states jurisdictions. The only time the feds can step in and make laws, are to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters.

But primaries ARE NOT under government jurisidiction, beyond the point you have to register with the state to be involved in one. The Govt, really has no say in primaries, primaries are under the control of the parties, and their state parties. And state parties don't always agree with the National Party, look at Florida as an example.

Whoops, you're right.

Is there really no way for this to be done? I mean even if one legislative act can't make it happen, what would the process be to get these kind of reforms?

you'd have to have two party bosses strong enough to get the regional/local parties to fall in line and bipartisan enough to agree to a similar system.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!


As far as I'm concerned people need to STFU about Iowa and NH. Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.


Oh and don't forget....




WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!



:roll:

What kind of stupid response is this, everything in politics is about grievances and resolving them so why don't you take that response and apply it to every issue we face and see where it gets you?

Don't like the war in Iraq? WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Think social security is broken? WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Don't like blacks sitting in the back? WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Don't like King George taxing you without representation? WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

:roll: Well, I happen to think the whole premise of your OP sucks and shows how little you know about NH and Iowa - not to mention the "election process". It just smacks of whining so I believe my response was appropriate.

Actually I was bringing up the positives of the Iowa and NH primaries and asking what some others were because we hear so much about how they are unfair. Then I suggested that maybe the best way to solve the problem and be fair to everyone is to have a rotating early primary. You then come in an offer your opinion but frame it like a jackass. If you do that, nobody takes you seriously and you don't contribute anything to the discussion.

Apparently this makes my argument better so let me just add... :roll: WHAAAA!!!

When you start off with:

It seems obvious that having Iowa and New Hampshire primaries early makes little sense, as both states are unrepresentative of the country as a whole and many people are left out of the election process.

It pretty much shows what I stated before and got the response it deserved. The media has been pushing this whining so I don't really blame you - it's just that I'm sick of hearing all the bitching and whining about it. Clearly Iowa doesn't have the racial "diversity" but it does have political diversity so it very much is representative of the nation.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Except for the fact, the Federal Govt doesnt control elections.

The courts have ruled time and time again, that elections are states jurisdictions. The only time the feds can step in and make laws, are to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters.

But primaries ARE NOT under government jurisidiction, beyond the point you have to register with the state to be involved in one. The Govt, really has no say in primaries, primaries are under the control of the parties, and their state parties. And state parties don't always agree with the National Party, look at Florida as an example.

Whoops, you're right.

Is there really no way for this to be done? I mean even if one legislative act can't make it happen, what would the process be to get these kind of reforms?

you'd have to have two party bosses strong enough to get the regional/local parties to fall in line and bipartisan enough to agree to a similar system.

IE: Never going to happen. State parties vary greatly. Rarely is there a state party that is 100% in line with the national party.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!


As far as I'm concerned people need to STFU about Iowa and NH. Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.


Oh and don't forget....




WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!



:roll:

What kind of stupid response is this, everything in politics is about grievances and resolving them so why don't you take that response and apply it to every issue we face and see where it gets you?

Don't like the war in Iraq? WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Think social security is broken? WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Don't like blacks sitting in the back? WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Don't like King George taxing you without representation? WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

:roll: Well, I happen to think the whole premise of your OP sucks and shows how little you know about NH and Iowa - not to mention the "election process". It just smacks of whining so I believe my response was appropriate.

Actually I was bringing up the positives of the Iowa and NH primaries and asking what some others were because we hear so much about how they are unfair. Then I suggested that maybe the best way to solve the problem and be fair to everyone is to have a rotating early primary. You then come in an offer your opinion but frame it like a jackass. If you do that, nobody takes you seriously and you don't contribute anything to the discussion.

Apparently this makes my argument better so let me just add... :roll: WHAAAA!!!

When you start off with:

It seems obvious that having Iowa and New Hampshire primaries early makes little sense, as both states are unrepresentative of the country as a whole and many people are left out of the election process.

It pretty much shows what I stated before and got the response it deserved. The media has been pushing this whining so I don't really blame you - it's just that I'm sick of hearing all the bitching and whining about it. Clearly Iowa doesn't have the racial "diversity" but it does have political diversity so it very much is representative of the nation.

That isn't just my opinion, that's just what the old argument is and it really is a valid one. So starting from that basis, assuming it is a flawed system, I then began to say what was good about it. It's like if I started a discussion with "With drunk driving killing so many people, having a .08 BAC seems like an obviously good choice that will save lives." and then continued with "But .08 isn't really intoxicated so are we punishing people who are sober enough to drive? What other reasons are there for making the BAC limit higher?"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!


As far as I'm concerned people need to STFU about Iowa and NH. Someone has to be "first" and no one will be happy with whatever state(s) get that distiction. It's really only a weeding out process and it seems to have done it's job on the D side and NH may do it for the R's.


Oh and don't forget....




WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!



:roll:

What kind of stupid response is this, everything in politics is about grievances and resolving them so why don't you take that response and apply it to every issue we face and see where it gets you?

Don't like the war in Iraq? WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Think social security is broken? WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Don't like blacks sitting in the back? WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Don't like King George taxing you without representation? WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

:roll: Well, I happen to think the whole premise of your OP sucks and shows how little you know about NH and Iowa - not to mention the "election process". It just smacks of whining so I believe my response was appropriate.

Actually I was bringing up the positives of the Iowa and NH primaries and asking what some others were because we hear so much about how they are unfair. Then I suggested that maybe the best way to solve the problem and be fair to everyone is to have a rotating early primary. You then come in an offer your opinion but frame it like a jackass. If you do that, nobody takes you seriously and you don't contribute anything to the discussion.

Apparently this makes my argument better so let me just add... :roll: WHAAAA!!!

When you start off with:

It seems obvious that having Iowa and New Hampshire primaries early makes little sense, as both states are unrepresentative of the country as a whole and many people are left out of the election process.

It pretty much shows what I stated before and got the response it deserved. The media has been pushing this whining so I don't really blame you - it's just that I'm sick of hearing all the bitching and whining about it. Clearly Iowa doesn't have the racial "diversity" but it does have political diversity so it very much is representative of the nation.

That isn't just my opinion, that's just what the old argument is and it really is a valid one. So starting from that basis, assuming it is a flawed system, I then began to say what was good about it. It's like if I started a discussion with "With drunk driving killing so many people, having a .08 BAC seems like an obviously good choice that will save lives." and then continued with "But .08 isn't really intoxicated so are we punishing people who are sober enough to drive? What other reasons are there for making the BAC limit higher?"

I don't see it as valid. Not because I currenly live in Iowa. I remember having this debate in '92 and '00 with people and I didn't live here. People keep trying to claim this magical "represent the nation" nonesense but it's obvious they haven't looked into it or are using intentionally vague standards for that conclusion. Look at the political breakdown and tell me how that doesn't represent the nation. Then after that, please tell me why we shouldn't have a process that weeds out candidates like we currently do.