• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

States begin to say Primaries are pointless, axe Presidential Primary vote 11-9-2003

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
I'm not sure I understand how this all works. Why should the states pay for party primaries? Shouldn't the parties be responsible for organizing this kind of thing? I'm not a member of either party....why should my money be wasted on this? Or am I missing something??
 

Gravity

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2003
5,685
0
0
It's not a bad thing. I wonder if they are doing it in the name of saving $$ though. They are gonna spend some series dough on elections in the next year. That is very sad.

Gravity
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,280
3,334
126
Originally posted by: TheBDB
I'm not sure I understand how this all works. Why should the states pay for party primaries? Shouldn't the parties be responsible for organizing this kind of thing? I'm not a member of either party....why should my money be wasted on this? Or am I missing something??
Good question. I have no idea how these Primaries work and find them kinda odd, being a Canadian and all. :) Up here, when a political Party chooses a new Leader, they organize the whole shindig, pay for it, bring in the Delegates(or use a Remote/Proxy vote), and it's a one time deal not a traveling show from Province to Province. To me, the US Presidential Primaries appear to be part of the Political structure of the US, a structured Institution which gaurantees that only a Republican or Democrat can ever be elected, without a major groundswell of Public protest.

I'd be curious to know the History behind the Presidential Primary system, when it started(I highly doubt it was formed from the USs' inception), and what the reasoning behind it was?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,411
5,427
126
in theory the primaries take control away from the party bosses. but that is only in theory... rarely do the party bosses not get their way. the article correctly points out that most primaries are completely worthless.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,411
5,427
126
btw dave, way to have a biased title (it isn't just the republicans doing it)

Other Democrats, however, are pushing to get rid of primaries. Maine dropped its presidential primary for next year, and New Mexico effectively did ? it passed a law allowing parties to hold caucuses, and then Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson set an early Feb. 3 caucus

Washington Gov. Gary Locke, head of the Democratic Governors Association, is calling a special session to discuss scrapping his state's primary next year.

"Why waste $7 million of scarce state money?" Locke said. Democrats in Washington state are using precinct caucuses in February to allocate national convention delegates, making the March 2 primary pointless.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ElFenix
btw dave, way to have a biased title (it isn't just the republicans doing it)

Other Democrats, however, are pushing to get rid of primaries. Maine dropped its presidential primary for next year, and New Mexico effectively did ? it passed a law allowing parties to hold caucuses, and then Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson set an early Feb. 3 caucus

Washington Gov. Gary Locke, head of the Democratic Governors Association, is calling a special session to discuss scrapping his state's primary next year.

"Why waste $7 million of scarce state money?" Locke said. Democrats in Washington state are using precinct caucuses in February to allocate national convention delegates, making the March 2 primary pointless.
OK, how should I change it. The article did not say any Democratic controlled Legislatures voted to do away with the Primaries.


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY