Primary/Caucus System

[Redefeatbush04]

Rather than spreading the primaries out, would it be more logical to have all of them on the same day?

[YRABNNRM]

I would like it if they were all on one day. I think with having the primaries spread out it basically gives whoever wins the first two primaries the nomination because the rest of the states follow due to the candidates momentum.

Also with spreading the primaries out the states that have their primaries very late basically don't even matter. This wouldn't happen if they were all one day.

[Alcon]

I support this, too. WA didn't get to have a primary this year because everything would have been decided before we had it. Disappointing.

[Redefeatbush04]

Everyone I've talked too, republican or democrat, has supported this, yet no-one is doing anything about it!!!

[muon2]

The one feature in favor of an extended season is that it is very hard to get to know a large field of candidates if they face each other in a single primary. A debate with more than three or four candidates provides little time for anyone to seriously get their issues out. Think about the debates between the Democrats for President a year ago. they were often lucky to get three answers out in a forum. The media coverage is just as spread out.

In the IL Senate race the primary debates for both parties were equally useless since there were 8 or 9 candidates for each party's nomination. If not for Blair Hulls exposed divorce records, the general election would have been between Hull and Ryan. An extended primary season (eg. by county) would have probably produced a race between Obama and Rauschenberger. A caucus system leading to a state convention probably would have produced similar results: Obama vs. Rauschenberger.

I used to like the idea of a single national primary, but now that I've spent a lot of time on the inside of party politics I see the shortcomings. When there is a large electorate the single primary will often eliminate the best candidate. The winner of a single large primary will more often go to the best funded or the one with the best central committee backing that can produce an instant turnout. A more deliberate process can effectively check out the candidates and get to those who will best represent their party in the fall.

[DaleC76]

One big primary, award delegates proportionately to the % of votes candidates get, and watch the conventions become interesting again. 

[J. J.]

I'm opposed.  A protracted primary process gives each party to vet a potential nominee.  I would, however be more open to regional primaries.

[Alcon]

The only problem with the current system is that some states will always be highly important while others never will be.

At least, it should cycle for which states are first.

[Erc]

I've got some influence as my state votes on Super Tuesday (right?)--but even then its usually decided by then.  And that's a bit undemocratic, but its the way the parties want to do it.  And I can't blame them--the way the system is now, a clear winner will almost inevitably emerge by a certain point.  If it were all on one day--imagine the NH results extrapolated to the rest of the US.

Kerry: 1682 Delegates
Dean: 1154 Delegates
Clark: 544 Delegates
Edwards:  528 Delegates
Lieberman:  376 Delegates
Kucinich:  62 Delegates
Sharpton:  7 Delegates

(2177 needed for nomination)

And then we're back to the pre-FDR days of conventions, where everything gets ridiculous.  Neither Dean nor Kerry would pull out, and Clark & Edwards are vying for a possible dark-horse compromise candidate position (as could Lieberman, although he might pull out early in the hopes of a VP slot).  And then the delegates have all the power...

Of course, the likely solution is that Edwards drops out on the second ballot, pushing Kerry up to 2210 and the win (in return, he gets the VP slot).


In my opinion, the best solution is having IRV or some other method everywhere on one day, thus solving both problems.  Of course, this opens the door for IRV in the general election, which neither party wants.  Plus it renders the conventions utterly useless.

So I don't think it will be changing for a while.

[patrick1]

With all due respect to Iowa and New Hampshire, we should no longer have two states that do not reflect America choose who is nominated.  I support a form of regional primaries.  Southeast one week then Northeast etc etc.

[Redefeatbush04]

I like Alcon's idea of cycling the order. That way my New Jersey is not always left out.

[zachman]

Don't mess with NH.

Getting rid of this system puts even more power into television and party bosses. Not a good idea.

[muon2]

With all due respect to Iowa and New Hampshire, we should no longer have two states that do not reflect America choose who is nominated.  I support a form of regional primaries.  Southeast one week then Northeast etc etc.

The results suggest that IA and NH have been pretty close to the national average in recent elections. In 2004 they tended slightly to the Democrat side, by about 3-4% in terms of total popular vote. If one added CO as a third state this year in February, the combination probably would have been a reasonable sample of national sentiment.

[patrick1]

With all due respect to Iowa and New Hampshire, we should no longer have two states that do not reflect America choose who is nominated.  I support a form of regional primaries.  Southeast one week then Northeast etc etc.

The results suggest that IA and NH have been pretty close to the national average in recent elections. In 2004 they tended slightly to the Democrat side, by about 3-4% in terms of total popular vote. If one added CO as a third state this year in February, the combination probably would have been a reasonable sample of national sentiment.

I meant that both have very few Hispanics or blacks or Asians. 

[Brutus]

With all due respect to Iowa and New Hampshire, we should no longer have two states that do not reflect America choose who is nominated.  I support a form of regional primaries.  Southeast one week then Northeast etc etc.

I like this idea, and have heard it floated before.  We could have regional primaries, with a schedule for cycling the regional order each election season.

[muon2]

With all due respect to Iowa and New Hampshire, we should no longer have two states that do not reflect America choose who is nominated.  I support a form of regional primaries.  Southeast one week then Northeast etc etc.

The results suggest that IA and NH have been pretty close to the national average in recent elections. In 2004 they tended slightly to the Democrat side, by about 3-4% in terms of total popular vote. If one added CO as a third state this year in February, the combination probably would have been a reasonable sample of national sentiment.

I meant that both have very few Hispanics or blacks or Asians. 

That's one reason I suggested CO.

[jimrtex]

Let's say that you have 10 candidates.  They can be paired in 45 combinations.  Each pair draws 9 or 10 CDs that they will contest against each other.

Then you draw up a schedule, with each matchup lasting 2 weeks.  For example, you might have had Kerry v. Dean, Edwards v Clark, Gephardt v Sharpton, Mosely-Braun v Kucinich, and Gore v Lieberman one period.

With 9 or 10 CDs over a 2 week period, the candidates can have a debate in one each week with 4 off days.  At the end of the campaigning period, the voters in each CD vote for one of their two candidates.

Total time period is about 4 months, March to June.  The candidate who wins the most of the 87 CDs he contest is the party's candidate.

[muon2]

It's an interesting thought. I suspect that the ability to contest in small populations like a CD would enable minor and local candidates to carry blocks of delegates to the convention. It might possibly give the same result as a caucus-based system. In that case can we say that caucuses aren't so bad?

[YRABNNRM]

I've got some influence as my state votes on Super Tuesday (right?)--but even then its usually decided by then.  And that's a bit undemocratic, but its the way the parties want to do it.  And I can't blame them--the way the system is now, a clear winner will almost inevitably emerge by a certain point.  If it were all on one day--imagine the NH results extrapolated to the rest of the US.

Kerry: 1682 Delegates
Dean: 1154 Delegates
Clark: 544 Delegates
Edwards:  528 Delegates
Lieberman:  376 Delegates
Kucinich:  62 Delegates
Sharpton:  7 Delegates

(2177 needed for nomination)

And then we're back to the pre-FDR days of conventions, where everything gets ridiculous.  Neither Dean nor Kerry would pull out, and Clark & Edwards are vying for a possible dark-horse compromise candidate position (as could Lieberman, although he might pull out early in the hopes of a VP slot).  And then the delegates have all the power...

Of course, the likely solution is that Edwards drops out on the second ballot, pushing Kerry up to 2210 and the win (in return, he gets the VP slot).

Thats exactly how I want the system to work! More fun that way...

[zachman]

The Democrats should go back to the 1968 system. There should be a few states with state conventions.

If I would fault Terry McAulife with one thing, it would be putting the Iowa Caucus, NH Primary, and mini-Tuesday over a three week span. We need a much more drawn out and deliberatie process.

[muon2]

The Democrats should go back to the 1968 system. There should be a few states with state conventions.

If I would fault Terry McAulife with one thing, it would be putting the Iowa Caucus, NH Primary, and mini-Tuesday over a three week span. We need a much more drawn out and deliberatie process.

But he got exactly what he and most party leaders wanted. A candidate that came out without bruises and a lot of cash available between Super Tuesday and the Convention. Perhaps some of those leaders now recognize that vetting a candidate with the wider public counts for the General Election.