Democratic Primary's Need To Be Changed In Several Ways

[Quixote1818]

First of all they need to be slowed down again. Basically it came down to who ever won Iowa ended up with all the momentum and was bound to win. Kerry had a huge advantage because he won Iowa then went to a state next door to his home state. If you win the first two states in a speed up primary season you basically have it in the bag. We need to go back to the old way where someone can loose then make a comeback. Also, I think we should have several waves of primary's each in three different states from three different regions that change every four years. Their should be a mix of blue and red states in each round. This way someone who is strong in the south or the west but week in the North East or Midwest gets off to a good start or vise versa. If money is a concern then candidates could dip into a some kind of fund from the DNC for the first round to give them the money to get off to a good start then the funding would end. For instance:

First Round:

Montana, Georgia, Vermont

Second Round:

Nevada, Iowa, Tenn.

Third Round:

Washington, New Mexico, Rhode Island,

Etc. Etc. Then in 2012 the states would rotate but Big states would never be at the beginning because they cost too much to campaign in.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. Bill Clinton didn't win Iowa....

Most times a candidate doesn't run the board after Iowa. :hi:

[Quixote1818]

4. That was not a speed up primary season though

Their was time for a candidate who lost to regroup and make a comeback.

[Debi]

5. Bill Clinton did't run in Iowa

Senator Harkin from Iowa ran in 1992 and (being a native son) was expected to win so most other candidates either didn't run in Iowa or only paid Iowa lip service.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. Okay then. He didn't win in New Hampshire either. There are flaws

with this

http://www.politicallibrary.org/TallState/1992dem.html

http://www.politicallibrary.org/TallState/1992dem.html

I state again, rare is it that a political candidate runs the board. I don't think we should start with Iowa, but I just wanted to bring this up. :hi:

[Debi]

9. Right you are..

He came in second in NH and had time to 'ramp up' for the next state(s)


IA/NH aren't the problem (I'm supportive of my state remaining 1st in the Nation).

It's the frontloading of the primaries that hurt this past cycle.

Personally I think smaller states should go first with the larger states going in the spring.

[ScreamingMeemie]

10. So many of our Democrats here in MI didn't even show up to vote

because they felt it was a done deal. The candidates are getting screwed in the larger states in my opinion. That and the utter disenfranshisement in the city of Detroit (closed caucus sites and all) we've got a mess on our hands.

[Debi]

13. Wasn't it like six polling places that we're closed or moved?

I remember reading it - think of MT/NJ - they had their primaries on June 3rd. Like it even mattered at that point.

[Massacure]

2. Or have all primaries on the same day.

[EST]

18. Yes, yes, yes!

Simultaneous primaries, all states, April or May. We need a change!

[beyurslf]

3. I hate that IA and NH are first.

Why do a bunch of white farmers and white New Englanders get to pick our candidate?

[Debi]

6. I'm not a white farmer

and I live in Iowa...do I need to move?

[beyurslf]

11. Touche. I know I way over generalize, but the point is both states have

some of the lowest numbers of minorites in the country. And both are vastly more rural than the rest of the country.

[Debi]

12. And both states cost a heck of a lot less to run a campaign in

I know that's not the biggest seller for keeping them First, but it's a lot cheaper to run statewide in Iowa than in NY or TX.

I expect to take crap for living in a First state. I hope I can be up to defending it (cuz I sure don't want to lose it!)

[Quixote1818]

14. Notice I mentioned that the first states should never be large states

because of money concerns.

[Debi]

15. And I agree.

I just want Iowa to remain first...do you blame me? :shrug:
If your state was first would you want to change it? :shrug:

[Quixote1818]

7. Exactly, Clark and Edwards from the south were put at a disadvantage

because of this.

[HereSince1628]

16. I'd like to see primary #1 go to the best dem turnout in the previous

mid term and presidential election.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

17. as an outsider

i.e. not an American citizen, who'd never paid much attention to the US election process until 2003-2004 (fear of Dubya got me interested!)
the question I'd most like answered is:


Why does Iowa have to be a caucus?

It seems a bizarre, old-fashioned, non-inclusive way of polling people.

Why should people have to devote several hours in the middle of winter and make their vote so publicly when, at its best democracy should be something that people can do easily and privately.

I think the caucus procedure borders on undemocratic and puts a greater premium on access to party machinery and infrastructure.

Why can't it be a primary like other states? Give me one good reason (and I don't accept 'that's the way we've always done it' as a good reason).

[justgamma]

21. I really like the caucus

We don't just pick a candidate. We talk about the issues and what we want on the platform. We also discuss the pros and cons of the people running. This is when we pick the state delegates. It really doesn't take long. It's a good way to meet like minded people in your area. Just going to the polls is very impersonal.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

22. thanks for the answer

but surely not everyone wants a discussion and an occasion where they need to interact with others.

Doesn't it also mean people sometimes feel pressure to change or justify their vote? Some people just don't like talking about politics and I'm sure would be intimidated and stay away. Obviously people like us who come to a political discussion group feel comfortable with the concept, but most people I know would not like to discuss politics with people they don't necessarily know very well.

When you say it doesn't take long, how long? Other Iowans have told me that it can be three hours or more.

[justgamma]

24. Ours only took maybe an hour.

You sign in and immediately split into groups. Dean supporters in one group. Kerry supporters in another and so on. If a candidate you support drops out, the rest of the groups do try to talk you into joining theirs. The caucus is usually pretty small and local. In my small town, I pretty much knew everyone there. You can leave after the voting or stay and discuss the platform. The voting is actually pretty quick.
We were evenly split. 11 for Dean, 11 for Kerry, 12 for Edwards and 10 for Gebhart, 2 for Kuchinich. (We hadn't heard much about Clark who decided to skip Iowa)

Being first in the nation really has the advantage of getting to know the candidates. We have the opportunity of seeing a lot of them up close and personal.

[KnowerOfLogic]

19. Don't slow them down; have them all on the same day. nt

[ultraist]

20. I doubt they will change it in 08

It sucks that Iowa and NH pick for the rest of us. Ia & NH have extremely low percentages of minorites, below the national average.

They should at least choose one northern and one southern state.

[cestpaspossible]

23. Montana state law mandates a June primary

"On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June"

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/13/1/13-1-107.htm

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/13/10/13-10-401.htm

So you'd have to change the law to have Montana go first.