Earlier Primaries

Discussion in 'Politics' started by EdSutton, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why don't we just hold 'em all next month, and get 'em over and done??

    Primaries and caucuses (caucii?) are continually being moved to stay ahead of somebody else.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20587800/

    Frankly, I'd like to see them be moved back, a few months!!

    BTW, KY did move theirs back, a few years ago. I liked it.

    On second thought, it seems that the National Parties are threatening to take away delegates from states that move them ahead in opposition to "party rules".

    I ain't yet 'zackly figgered out why the 'parties' think their "rules" should take precedence over the legislative actions of the states, however.

    Maybe all of them should move them up, and we could get most of the delegates eliminated from the picture, and let the actual primary votes actually determine the nominees, ya' think?

    Ed
     
    #1 EdSutton, Sep 4, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2007
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a better idea. Send both parties, their cronies, the lobbiest that beg at their feet, and all the politicians, put them on a remote island, and start over.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does any other country have primary elections? The USofA origionally did not. Why do we need a national primary election? Let the parties pick and pay.
     
  5. Jack Matthews

    Jack Matthews
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    1
    If I remember my high school civics, primaries were developed in order to give smaller states with smaller population a chance to experience presidential campaigns that would otherwise ignore them. They are sort of a counter balance to the electoral college. New Hampshire law, for example, states that they must hold their primary election at least seven days prior to that of any other state to guarantee that they are first, and they get an opportunity to experience campaigning that they would not otherwise experience because they have only four electoral votes.

    With the campaigning beginning so ridiculously early this time around, I wouldn't be surprised if there were not some big surprises in the primaries.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think most countries have runoffs with the top two vote getters than running against each other.

    This primary stuff has become silly. Everyone is trying to vote before things are decided. The only way it will work is probably to have a national primary day where everyone votes on the same day, and can only vote in one party for one person. The top vote getter from each party then runs in the general election. Have the primary sometime in March, like Super Tuesday used to be.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regional primaries would be better. The presidential nomination has historically been one that winnowed the field over a period of months of primaries as in 1976 when the Reagan-Ford and Carter-Udall nomination races from January through May were great political theatre.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think regional primaries contains the same problem. The race is over before some people vote.
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two problems I see with a national primary:

    1) It basically reduces the race down to whomever can raise the most money/has the highest name recognition. There would be no chance for a lesser known candidate to work his way up through the pack.

    2) You could end up with the "winner" and party nominee receiving only 20-25% of the vote. I think there would at least have to be a run-off between the top two in votes received to give the party nominee any credibility at all.
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    To some degree, but the alternative problem is that a couple of weeks in, those lesser names who didn't do well are out anyway.

    Yes, have a party run off and then the national election. I have no issue with that.

    I just think that the current system, particularly now, is so messed up it tilts the field towards those who can raise money early and get name recognition early.

    Look at it now: It is not a campaign of ideas, but names. Hillary, Obama, Rudy, John, etc aren't leading because their ideas have been pounded, refined, processed, examined. They are running because of their name recognition.
     
  11. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is probably unConstitutional, but it would be great if a law were passed not allowing campaigning for the primaries until January 2008, and after all the primaries, no campaigning for the general election until Labor Day 2008.
     

Share This Page

Loading...