Democrats Getting Closer to Dumping 1st of the Election Season Iowa Caucuses
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 25, 2022, 02:30:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Democrats Getting Closer to Dumping 1st of the Election Season Iowa Caucuses
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Democrats Getting Closer to Dumping 1st of the Election Season Iowa Caucuses  (Read 1908 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,007
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 10, 2021, 10:06:53 PM »
« edited: October 16, 2021, 10:48:39 PM by Frodo »

In addition to the fact that Iowa is no longer representative of the Democratic Party, it doesn't help Iowa Democrats' case that the 2020 caucuses were such a disaster, and that their state is becoming more Republican:

Democrats edge toward dumping Iowa’s caucuses as the first presidential vote
Logged
RockFlagAndEagle
Rookie
**
Posts: 35
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2021, 10:15:02 AM »

At the very least, they should seriously consider having one state from each region on the same day.

Northeast: New Hampshire
South: South Carolina
Midwest: Iowa
West: Nevada

In the digital age, there's no need to have the early contests go one by one, the candidates can focus on multiple states while still having a personal touch and getting to interact with voters. If a lesser known candidate can't afford a 4-state strategy right out of the gate, they can go all in on one or two states, hoping to emerge as the surprise story.

Also make superdelegates contingent upon the use of primaries instead of caucuses, and upon following the above schedule.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2021, 10:45:47 AM »

Good, because we should ASAP. Even if granting one of the whitest states in the Union such a disproportionate amount of influence in selecting our nominee weren't enough of a bad look, it's just a simple fact that caucuses disenfranchise.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,564
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2021, 06:04:01 PM »

IA+NH+SC+NV is a pretty balanced combination of representative interests, but if you genuinely want to balance regional and racial/ethnic considerations, consider adding 4 more: HI (most Asian-American state), NM (another heavily-Latino state), DC (another heavily-black jurisdiction) and WV (another heavily-white state).



Based on 2020 pledged delegates and simplifying each state's categorization:

Quote
WHITE   93   35.63%
BLACK    74   28.35%
LATINO   70   26.82%
ASIAN    24   9.20%

Though honestly, Nevada is almost a perfect racial/ethnic reflection of the country as a whole, so if you want to count each segment of each state according to its Democratic electorate:

Quote
56.63% White
19.42% Black
17.38% Latino
6.57% Other

...which is pretty dang close to the composition of the national Democratic electorate.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,600
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2021, 06:56:15 PM »

Good news! Let's get rid of all the other few caucuses that remain too, while we're at it.

Furthermore, we should dump investment in everything having to do with Iowa in general. Just let the GOP have the state, and we can concentrate on North Carolina and Texas instead.
Logged
Leroy McPherson fan
Leroymcphersonfan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 399
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2021, 08:08:41 PM »

Only let Arkansas vote for the Democrats.
Logged
TML
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,103


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2021, 10:34:07 PM »

Are you not aware that all 50 states and DC each have party primaries or caucuses for both major parties, regardless of each state/territory’s partisan lean? What’s being discussed here is merely the ordering of said primaries/caucuses, not whether or not to hold them for certain states (they will still be held in all 50 states and DC in any case).
Logged
Leroy McPherson fan
Leroymcphersonfan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 399
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2021, 10:35:24 PM »

Are you not aware that all 50 states and DC each have party primaries or caucuses for both major parties, regardless of each state/territory’s partisan lean? What’s being discussed here is merely the ordering of said primaries/caucuses, not whether or not to hold them for certain states (they will still be held in all 50 states and DC in any case).
It’s just a joke.
Logged
Pres Mike
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 535
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2021, 07:59:30 AM »

Thank god

I used to be a member of alternatehistory.com

They were obessed with the idea of the Iowa Caucus going first. I hated the Iowa Caucus. I hope they all feel bad when the Democrats get rid of this stupid tradation.
Logged
PIED PIPER
Forumlurker161
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,711



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2021, 11:01:40 PM »

Make it based on the tipping point state of the last presidential election.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,970
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2021, 09:38:57 PM »

Make it based on the tipping point state of the last presidential election.

I actually can get behind this idea for both parties.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,369
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2021, 10:01:44 PM »

There is a good chance Iowa doesn't hold a GOP caucus either, and this is a possibility that needs to be considered of Trump forcing the RNC and state parties to steal the nomination for him. Which is ironic, but its where we are at.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,952



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2021, 04:38:53 AM »

Make it based on the tipping point state of the last presidential election.

That would make parties fight the last battle, rather than innovate and form new coalitions.
Logged
CookieDamage
cookiedamage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2021, 02:32:38 PM »
« Edited: October 30, 2021, 02:36:20 PM by CookieDamage »

I think a same-day regional approach is a decent idea. Like a very, very mini-super Tuesday.

At the very least, they should seriously consider having one state from each region on the same day.

Northeast: New Hampshire
South: South Carolina
Midwest: Iowa
West: Nevada

In the digital age, there's no need to have the early contests go one by one, the candidates can focus on multiple states while still having a personal touch and getting to interact with voters. If a lesser known candidate can't afford a 4-state strategy right out of the gate, they can go all in on one or two states, hoping to emerge as the surprise story.

Also make superdelegates contingent upon the use of primaries instead of caucuses, and upon following the above schedule.

Although I would make some changes.

For the midwest I'd pick Minnesota. It's not as white as Iowa and has a major metro. It's not as expensive to campaign in as Chicago (no massive media market), and has a good mix of remaining white liberals and white rurals.

Michigan would be good too. Decent black population as well as a large suburban population as well.

For the west I'd pick either Nevada or New Mexico.

For the south I'd pick Georgia. It has a diverse population, a big urban area, lots of black and white rurals, and potentially is a Democratic state and well-representative of future Dem coalitions.

For the northeast, I think Rhode Island or Delaware could be good. Cheap states to campaign in but those which have diverse, urban populations and small enough so that candidates can actually campaign with the ability to make an impact. I'm biased of course but I'd LOVE to see Jersey go early. As a Dem electorate it's kinda not that different from PA or NY, with the caveat that we're more suburban. But for a populated major state, we go too late most often. The negative is that it's VERY expensive and is really just two metro areas.

These four regional contests can either happen on the same day, or take place earlier than the traditional cycle and happen a week or so apart.

Or we could do two on the same day a week apart. So like Feb 1 is the southern and midwestern primary and Feb 7 is the northeastern and western primary.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,007
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2021, 06:09:26 PM »

So it doesn't look like there is any likelihood that we will see a revised primary calendar that doesn't keep Iowa and New Hampshire in their accustomed place at the top of the heap.  At least not for the 2024 election cycle, though they are keeping the door open for subsequent presidential election cycles:

Dems sour on bid to ditch first-in-the-nation states
Party officials don’t want to project a disunified front with a stormy midterm election season ahead.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,544
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2021, 04:52:47 AM »
« Edited: December 22, 2021, 05:25:38 AM by MarkD »

Let's just get rid of all caucuses in one fell swoop, and improve the whole nominating process while we're at it. Here's an idea that I've talked about several times before, and because of some criticism I received for my original idea, I decided to revise it a little bit. We need a constitutional amendment adopted to create a schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries. The schedule should be "front-loaded" with small states and territories going first because that affords a greater likelihood that underfunded candidates can compete via "retail politicking," instead of trying to raise and spend the most money.

Require all states/territories to hold presidential primaries only, no more caucuses.
Prohibit any state/territory from holding a presidential primary before April 1 (of leap year).

Allow only the smallest states/territories, which have just 1 or 2 seats in the U.S. House of Reps, to hold primaries in April. This would mean (given the upcoming apportionment of seats for the next decade) Alaska, American Samoa, Delaware, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming could all choose any date in April for their primaries. (The amendment would probably also stipulate that the New Hampshire law that says their state must be first in the nation would be void.) (By including the 5 territories, which I forgot to do when I previously discussed this idea, I am including greater racial diversity for the primaries held in the month of April.)

Allow the medium-sized states, which have 3 to 9 seats in the House, to hold primaries in May. The states which could do so would be Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. These states could choose any date in May for when to hold their primaries.

Make all of the largest states wait until June to hold their primaries. That would include California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Again, these states could choose any date in June. The majority of delegates to the national conventions would not be selected until June. (Maybe we could even stipulate that the state(s) with the largest delegation of all to the House must wait until the last week of June, whereas all the other large states could hold primaries earlier in June.)

(In the long haul, some states would change their presidential primary schedule in coming decades. For example, after the 2030 census, Arizona would almost certainly change its date to June instead of May, because it will have 10 seats. Colorado might eventually do the same. Michigan and New Jersey - given their long-term population trends, in the last few decades and presumably the coming decades - might eventually end up with only 9 seats each, and then they would change their primary dates to May instead of June.)

With our current, existing system, the nominations are usually already assured by March, and we have to wait an agonizing amount of time until the conventions are held, which doesn't serve any good purpose that I can think of.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,663


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2021, 10:33:54 AM »
« Edited: December 22, 2021, 10:49:39 AM by StateBoiler »

Let's just get rid of all caucuses in one fell swoop, and improve the whole nominating process while we're at it. Here's an idea that I've talked about several times before, and because of some criticism I received for my original idea, I decided to revise it a little bit. We need a constitutional amendment adopted to create a schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries.

Considering the Constitution has nothing regarding political parties and therefore even further the idea of political party primaries in it, how are you going to do that? Here's everything your amendment is going to do:

First, you need to establish what political parties are. That's going to have a basket of unintended consequences and many Supreme Court cases.

Second, you need to establish what political party primaries are. That's likewise going to have a basket of unintended consequences and a few Supreme Court cases.

Third, you have to dictate to the parties (which are private organizations) some kind of "thou shalt nominate this individual if receiving _____ in the primaries", which means you need to come up with the winner mechanism or how votes are counted, which probably means unallocated delegates due to dropouts or an RFK 1968 scenario are going to be dictated how they'll vote similar to how Electors in the Electoral College are now instead of "our guy lost, we're going to back the winner". This is an unintended consequence.

Fourth, you need to come up with a schedule agreed on by mostly all that is going to be in place for decades unless further amendments come.

Fifth, you've just established the political calendar for every political party in the country, not just the Democrats and Republicans, and dictated to all of them that they must use primaries when third parties largely don't due to state law in most cases not giving them access to one and also because they're highly susceptible to entryism in primaries for non-party members, which is why forcing parties to have open primaries de facto violates their 1st Amendment right of association. But if you state all political parties must use primaries on a defined calendar, you've forced every state elections board in the country to give every political group a primary. This is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want or desire. You've also effectively killed the raison d'etre for the New York fusionist parties as they would be required to nominate the winners of their primaries for office instead of co-nominating the Democrats and Republicans they choose to do so (an unintended consequence of my 2nd point).

Sixth, in light of my 5th point, you've just established political legitimacy for all third parties that follow this calendar and process, meaning they should have input to the election system and would be discriminatory if they didn't. This is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want or desire and would be an unintended consequence.

Seventh, are you requiring elections for federal office primaries to follow this calendar or just the election for president?

Eighth, if you apply this primary law to all federal office primaries from point 7, do these primary laws now also apply to special elections?

In short, you're well-meaning but your proposal is incredibly flawed out of the starting gate even before you get to the details.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,544
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2021, 09:57:55 AM »

Taking your points in not quite the order they were presented in (I've already responded to Stateboiler by PM, so this is for the rest of you):
First, you need to establish what political parties are. That's going to have a basket of unintended consequences and many Supreme Court cases.

Second, you need to establish what political party primaries are. That's likewise going to have a basket of unintended consequences and a few Supreme Court cases.
Do you think people are going to have a difficult time understanding what is meant by political parties and presidential primaries? Don't we have more than a century and a half of experience with the former, and more than 50 years with the latter? You know, before the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, the word "income" never appeared in the Constitution. And there it is, the Sixteenth says:
Quote
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
But the word "incomes" was not defined by the Sixteenth. Wow! How are we supposed to figure out what does "income" mean? That's so ambiguous that it's going to unleash a flood of Supreme Court cases! Every word in the Constitution ought to be clearly be defined in the Constitution, so that there's no confusion in the future.

Third, you have to dictate to the parties (which are private organizations) some kind of "thou shalt nominate this individual if receiving _____ in the primaries", which means you need to come up with the winner mechanism or how votes are counted, which probably means unallocated delegates due to dropouts or an RFK 1968 scenario are going to be dictated how they'll vote similar to how Electors in the Electoral College are now instead of "our guy lost, we're going to back the winner". This is an unintended consequence.
No, we don't have to be precise about any of that. By not discussing it all, in an amendment that schedules presidential primaries, we leave it to the discretion of each political party to choose how to direct the results of the primaries into a nomination process. The political parties of today and in the future can continue doing what they already have been doing, or they can choose something else.

Fourth, you need to come up with a schedule agreed on by mostly all that is going to be in place for decades unless further amendments come.
This point almost seems like a train derailment posing as a coherent statement. I'm not sure I completely understand it. Any proposed amendment, of course, needs to have 3/4s of the states agree to ratify it, or else it ends up in a garbage can. And yes, there can be future amendments to adjust or refine what I am proposing.

Seventh, are you requiring elections for federal office primaries to follow this calendar or just the election for president?

Eighth, if you apply this primary law to all federal office primaries from point 7, do these primary laws now also apply to special elections?
Some states already have a different date for the presidential primary than for the primary election for all other offices, and they can continue to do that. More states can choose to do so as well, if they want. This proposal will not interfere with the other elections at all. That makes your eighth point moot.

Fifth, you've just established the political calendar for every political party in the country, not just the Democrats and Republicans, and dictated to all of them that they must use primaries when third parties largely don't due to state law in most cases not giving them access to one and also because they're highly susceptible to entryism in primaries for non-party members, which is why forcing parties to have open primaries de facto violates their 1st Amendment right of association. But if you state all political parties must use primaries on a defined calendar, you've forced every state elections board in the country to give every political group a primary. This is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want or desire. You've also effectively killed the raison d'etre for the New York fusionist parties as they would be required to nominate the winners of their primaries for office instead of co-nominating the Democrats and Republicans they choose to do so (an unintended consequence of my 2nd point).

Sixth, in light of my 5th point, you've just established political legitimacy for all third parties that follow this calendar and process, meaning they should have input to the election system and would be discriminatory if they didn't. This is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want or desire and would be an unintended consequence.

- skip -
In short, you're well-meaning but your proposal is incredibly flawed out of the starting gate even before you get to the details.

I'm just trying to start a conversation. There are more details to be worked out, and that's fine. For example, we could stipulate that the schedule for presidential primaries is being outlined for which two political parties got the most votes in the last presidential election, and other smaller parties have the option to continue handling their nomination process in whatever way they want. I'm just trying to start a conversation. You've given me things to think about, and more people here can chime in and suggest other things that need to be addressed, and we can address them. I'm just trying to start a conversation.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,272
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2022, 10:42:04 AM »

There should be 5 primaries (one from each type of state according to how they voted in the last presidential election) a week every Tuesday starting the day after MLKJ Day and one week to do all 8 territories.

You can have everything wrapped up by the end of March.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,683


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2022, 10:40:52 AM »

Let's just get rid of all caucuses in one fell swoop, and improve the whole nominating process while we're at it. Here's an idea that I've talked about several times before, and because of some criticism I received for my original idea, I decided to revise it a little bit. We need a constitutional amendment adopted to create a schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries.

Considering the Constitution has nothing regarding political parties and therefore even further the idea of political party primaries in it, how are you going to do that? Here's everything your amendment is going to do:

First, you need to establish what political parties are. That's going to have a basket of unintended consequences and many Supreme Court cases.

Second, you need to establish what political party primaries are. That's likewise going to have a basket of unintended consequences and a few Supreme Court cases.

Third, you have to dictate to the parties (which are private organizations) some kind of "thou shalt nominate this individual if receiving _____ in the primaries", which means you need to come up with the winner mechanism or how votes are counted, which probably means unallocated delegates due to dropouts or an RFK 1968 scenario are going to be dictated how they'll vote similar to how Electors in the Electoral College are now instead of "our guy lost, we're going to back the winner". This is an unintended consequence.

Fourth, you need to come up with a schedule agreed on by mostly all that is going to be in place for decades unless further amendments come.

Fifth, you've just established the political calendar for every political party in the country, not just the Democrats and Republicans, and dictated to all of them that they must use primaries when third parties largely don't due to state law in most cases not giving them access to one and also because they're highly susceptible to entryism in primaries for non-party members, which is why forcing parties to have open primaries de facto violates their 1st Amendment right of association. But if you state all political parties must use primaries on a defined calendar, you've forced every state elections board in the country to give every political group a primary. This is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want or desire. You've also effectively killed the raison d'etre for the New York fusionist parties as they would be required to nominate the winners of their primaries for office instead of co-nominating the Democrats and Republicans they choose to do so (an unintended consequence of my 2nd point).

Sixth, in light of my 5th point, you've just established political legitimacy for all third parties that follow this calendar and process, meaning they should have input to the election system and would be discriminatory if they didn't. This is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want or desire and would be an unintended consequence.

Seventh, are you requiring elections for federal office primaries to follow this calendar or just the election for president?

Eighth, if you apply this primary law to all federal office primaries from point 7, do these primary laws now also apply to special elections?

In short, you're well-meaning but your proposal is incredibly flawed out of the starting gate even before you get to the details.
Doesn’t literally every state already have laws covering all of this for elections to state offices?
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,663


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2022, 11:17:37 AM »

Let's just get rid of all caucuses in one fell swoop, and improve the whole nominating process while we're at it. Here's an idea that I've talked about several times before, and because of some criticism I received for my original idea, I decided to revise it a little bit. We need a constitutional amendment adopted to create a schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries.

Considering the Constitution has nothing regarding political parties and therefore even further the idea of political party primaries in it, how are you going to do that? Here's everything your amendment is going to do:

First, you need to establish what political parties are. That's going to have a basket of unintended consequences and many Supreme Court cases.

Second, you need to establish what political party primaries are. That's likewise going to have a basket of unintended consequences and a few Supreme Court cases.

Third, you have to dictate to the parties (which are private organizations) some kind of "thou shalt nominate this individual if receiving _____ in the primaries", which means you need to come up with the winner mechanism or how votes are counted, which probably means unallocated delegates due to dropouts or an RFK 1968 scenario are going to be dictated how they'll vote similar to how Electors in the Electoral College are now instead of "our guy lost, we're going to back the winner". This is an unintended consequence.

Fourth, you need to come up with a schedule agreed on by mostly all that is going to be in place for decades unless further amendments come.

Fifth, you've just established the political calendar for every political party in the country, not just the Democrats and Republicans, and dictated to all of them that they must use primaries when third parties largely don't due to state law in most cases not giving them access to one and also because they're highly susceptible to entryism in primaries for non-party members, which is why forcing parties to have open primaries de facto violates their 1st Amendment right of association. But if you state all political parties must use primaries on a defined calendar, you've forced every state elections board in the country to give every political group a primary. This is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want or desire. You've also effectively killed the raison d'etre for the New York fusionist parties as they would be required to nominate the winners of their primaries for office instead of co-nominating the Democrats and Republicans they choose to do so (an unintended consequence of my 2nd point).

Sixth, in light of my 5th point, you've just established political legitimacy for all third parties that follow this calendar and process, meaning they should have input to the election system and would be discriminatory if they didn't. This is something neither Democrats nor Republicans want or desire and would be an unintended consequence.

Seventh, are you requiring elections for federal office primaries to follow this calendar or just the election for president?

Eighth, if you apply this primary law to all federal office primaries from point 7, do these primary laws now also apply to special elections?

In short, you're well-meaning but your proposal is incredibly flawed out of the starting gate even before you get to the details.
Doesn’t literally every state already have laws covering all of this for elections to state offices?

No.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 1.605 seconds with 12 queries.