All state primaries on the same day

[muon2]

I'd like to see the 1968 schedule restored.

A national primary would be a disaster because the media and television could exert even more force over the primaries.

As for what system I'd like I'd like a mix of primaries, caucii, state conventions, and run-off style elections.

I would be open to the idea of DNC mailing list recipients (the RNC can do the same) being able to elect a slate of about 500 delegates in an online balloting event in the fall/summer before the primaries.

I don't know that I would select the 1968 schedule, per se, but I agree with a lot of the above sentiment. I disagree fundamentally with part of jhsu's assumptions about disenfranchised voters. And in fairness jhsu, represents many well intentioned people concerned about the selection of people to high office.

I think that the post-1960 presidential era has caused the electorate to forget what primaries are for. Primaries are NOT just the first phase in two-step runoff system. Yet, for offices up and down the ballot, that is exactly what they have become. If a state like LA wants to have a system like that for elections, I have no problem with that, but that is not the intent of primaries.

Primaries exist as the alternative to party slating of candidates on the ballot. I know in many countries each party determines its candidate (or list for multiseat jurisdictions) and that goes to the general public for the election. Slating is clearly a direct function of a party organization. A primary election is one method for parties to construct their slate for the general election. As such, their intent is to be a function of the parties, not the population as a whole.

As I noted, a primary is only one method by which a party can construct its slate. There are also caucuses, conventions and central committees available to organizations in the various states. Personally I find the IA caucuses a far more healthy exercise for the parties than the NH primary, but that choice is entirely up to the individual state parties.

[muon2]

It also seems to me that where a primary is involved, it should be closed at least to the extent that adherents of other parties should NOT be allowed to participate in the nomination of another party's delegates to the national party convention.

Even still, using money collected from all taxpayers to fund primaries that only some taxpayers can vote in is BS. The parties should pay for their own primaries if they're closed.

I agreeb with both sentiments. Party delegates should really represent the party. Party selection processes should be financed by the parties. This is one reason I favor caucuses.

For example, every spring after a presidential election there is a race for township offices in IL. These races are partisan, and each party township committee has a choice of a caucus or primary to select their slate for the consolidated election. The township commitee votes for the method, and costs are incurred by the party wither way. Since in IL one can change registration at the polling place, this can matter for contested races.

[muon2]

The current Primary system has several advantages.

1.  It permits candidates without a lot of money at the to arise.  Well financed candidates, Connelly (R-1980), Gramm (R-1996), Forbes (R-1996), Gore (D-1988), lost.  Some less well financed candidates were, Kerry (D-2004), Clinton (D-1992), Dukakis (D-1988) and Carter (D-1976).

2.  It permits less well known candidates to get their message accross, even if they don't win.  McGovern (D-1972), Carter (1976), Hart, (D-1984), Dukakis (D-1988), Dean (D 2004), and to a lesser extent McCain (R-2000).

3.  It gives the electorate a chance to see how well candidates can organize and respond to adversity.  While not as intense as the presidency, it is still exceptionally intense.

The list goes back to Muskie's tears during NH primary in 1972 and ends with Dean's "AAAAGH" after Iowa in 2004.  Some positive examples are Reagan's NH - 1980, "I'm paying for this microphone," and Clinton's 1992 60 Minutes interview.

I agree that there are some plusses in the primary system. However, the 2004 example may not be so good. A string of primaries without the Iowa Caucus may well have favored Dean. Caucuses require voters to see their neighbors, and be influenced by them. There is a segment of primary voters who will selected the perceived front-runner if all things are equal between candidates. Media can have the last word in a primary, but not in a caucus.

The Dukakis campaign probably would have done as well with caucuses or primaries. I followed that one quite closely, and more than the other candidates, the Dukakis campaign wooed rank-and-file party leaders. This provided key organizational support. It's not that there were primaries that helped, but rather that the primary campaign was spread out over many months.

[muon2]

I agree that there are some plusses in the primary system. However, the 2004 example may not be so good. A string of primaries without the Iowa Caucus may well have favored Dean. Caucuses require voters to see their neighbors, and be influenced by them. There is a segment of primary voters who will selected the perceived front-runner if all things are equal between candidates. Media can have the last word in a primary, but not in a caucus.

This, however, is different from the question.  I personally feel that primaries and caucuses test different, but important things.  A caucus tests the ability of a candidates organization at the grass roots level.  Is he a good enough administrator to get his ground game together?  Is he going to inspire volunteers?

Primaries are about, will he inspire voters?  Can he package his message on a more wholesale level?

Your comment inspires a new question. Have we entered an era where GOTV organization becomes as or more important than mass delivery of a message? The 2004 results suggest that that might be happening.

[muon2]

Kerry still would have one New Hampshire and Iowa... probably Illinois too.

I think Dean would have carried IL. Daley had not backed any one candidate and many local township organizations were heavily behind Dean. I reacjed a point in the summer and fall of 2003 that generic Democrat floats in parades only featured Dean.

The only other significant support I saw in late 2003 in IL was for Clark. For those who were uncomfortable with Dean, he was the consensus alternative among Dems here. Given the connections between Daley and many from Clinton's old organization, I would not have been surprised to see a Daley endorsement of Clark. The surprising thing for me was that Clark did not contest IA in the Midwest where a veteran's message plays well (see Kerry).