Why are primaries not all on the same day?

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
NH: 1.2 million people. 4 electoral votes. ~220,000 turned out for the primary. presidential candidate selection influence: tons

TX: 21 million people. 34 electoral votes. presidential candidate selection influence: none.

FL: 16 million people. 27 electoral votes. presidential candidate selection influence: none.

CA: 34 million people. 55 electoral votes. presidential candidate selection influence: very little.

NY: 19 million people. 31 electoral votes. presidential cnadidate selection influence: very little.


what sense does this make?
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
for the people in power to keep their kind in power; things have to be micromanaged very carefuly.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Silly, so the votes of those people after Super Tuesday don't matter. duhhh...
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Silly, so the votes of those people after Super Tuesday don't matter. duhhh...

not familiar with the concept of pack mentality eh?
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Texas Primary is sure not user friendly, the GOP polling places are in a
different location than the Democrat Polling places.
My wife has to vote from a building about 6 blocks from where I vote from.

Everywhere else I ever voter they did not have separate facilities for the parties.
Maybe a throw-back to segregation politics ?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Texas Primary is sure not user friendly, the GOP polling places are in a
different location than the Democrat Polling places.
My wife has to vote from a building about 6 blocks from where I vote from.

Everywhere else I ever voter they did not have separate facilities for the parties.
Maybe a throw-back to segregation politics ?

Iowa has seperate caucus sites. I didn't hear any complaints about that here.

CkG
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Texas Primary is sure not user friendly, the GOP polling places are in a
different location than the Democrat Polling places.
My wife has to vote from a building about 6 blocks from where I vote from.

Everywhere else I ever voter they did not have separate facilities for the parties.
Maybe a throw-back to segregation politics ?

yep, the democrats wouldn't let the republicans use the same polling places, so the republicans set up elsewhere and no one gave a rat's ass so it didn't get changed.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Yes we need the residents of Iowa to pick the favorite then everyone else jumps on the bandwagon and votes the same :)
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
There are structural differences between 'Primaries' and 'Caucauses'

Primaries are for 'Primates'
Caucauses are for 'Cacausians'

I don't know all the ramafications of the way Texas does things,
I can agree with 'Absentee Balloting' but see no validity in their 'Early Voting'
It looks like a way to manipulate the actual votes by the people.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,342
126
From this Canadians perspective the whole thing seems quite bizarre. At one time, over a century ago, the current system may have made sense, since travel and Campaigning were much more difficult. With air travel, TV, Radio, and the Internet though, it just seems to be drawn out for no particular reason.

It seems to also favour the Incumbent. The Challenger(s) need to first raise money then spend millions just to see who will challenge the Incumbent, then the Challenger needs to again return and raise more money from the same people to mount the challenge. OTOH, the drawn out process gives the Challenger the opportunity to be seen.

I think part of the problem is the Party System that has developed. It seems to me that the US Governmental System was designed for Independents and that Parties were not what the Founders had in mind. Along with comments made by some of the Founders, the Independence and Separation of the Office of President from either the House or Senate, I believe, illustrates the point. That point is that the 3 parts of the Government were designed to offset each other, to force the 3 to compromise with the various sentiments that is their speciality. The only way to accomplish good governance with this structure is for each part of Government to be focussed on their task and to bring that focus to any issue that is raised, that can only work if the 3 parts are Independent of each other.

What a Party does in such a System is to introduce a fourth level of Government, a level of Government that is beyond the reach of the People and which operates beyond the view of the People. Whereas Independents would be solely focussed on their Constituents, the Party Member is focussed on their Party and the Agenda of that Party. In the current situation with 1 Party controlling all 3 parts of the Government, the Government simply can not function as designed. There is too much coordination and too much Party pressure for the parts to offset each other.

This is quite the opposite to the British Parliamentary System which did have Parties in mind and not Independents. The British Parliamentary System also has 3 main Parts of Government:

1) The Governing Party: Party which wins the most Seats(most elected Members of Parliament)in an Election. It is also the Party whose Leader becomes Prime Minister

2) the (Her Majesty's)Loyal Opposition: The Party with the second most Seats. It gains special Priviledges as such compared to other parties that make up the Opposition

3) and the House of Lords: Largely a Patronage appointment for those who have served well, in this day and age(at least in Canada it is, although we call it the Senate). It is mostly powerless, but is charged with Oversight of decisions made by the House of Commons and can send Bills back to the House of Commons with suggestions

 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Because Iowa is the best so we should go first:D....well - OK, we suck...so we should go FIRST:D

CkG

There should be absolutely no reason Iowa and New Hampshire should go first in the nation. It cannot even argue historical precedence with a straight face since reforms happened to the nominating process only in the late 1960s.
This helps lead to wannabe presidential politicans pandering and supporting Iowa and New Hampshire disproportion to their population size.
Example:
In the last seven years, Iowa has received $10.2 billion (of farm subsidies), the most of any other state.
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers
It helps that Grassley and Harkin and Nussle can bring in the pork but it is also because most politicans who want to run for prez will need to support this system and also ethanol.

Anyway, I digress.
I think we should move towards a "super Tuesday" regional primary that rotates between the distinct regions: South, Midwest, Northeast, Pacific , etc.
The "first in the nation" should rotate between the regions. This will force candidates to talk about issues that may be national or regional but it will allow many more people to help decide who the presidental candidates will be. I mean Gephardt ran TV ads touting his support of a hog packer ban ... that is the minutiae we get into with a small voting population.

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
There are structural differences between 'Primaries' and 'Caucauses'

Primaries are for 'Primates'
Caucauses are for 'Cacausians'

I don't know all the ramafications of the way Texas does things,
I can agree with 'Absentee Balloting' but see no validity in their 'Early Voting'
It looks like a way to manipulate the actual votes by the people.

actually most polling places in texas have both dem and republican at the same place... if they were really 6 miles different like you claim that is probably a whole different precinct. especially since you don't have to vote in one particular party's primary.

your statement about caucuses is retarded.

early voting has a point. i don't like voting on tuesdays, so i vote early on a weekend and don't have to wait or do anything else.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Texas Republican Primary today, Fort Worth Ballot - 30 slots to vote for, 24 UN-OPPOSED.

Record your vote by completing the gap in the middle of the arrow <== ==

President: George W. Bush

Uncommitted <=======