Do you like our primaries always starting with IA, NH and SC?

[skipos]

If not, what is a better plan?

One big national primary would probably give a huge edge to candidates with money and/or name recogntion (that's why Hillary and Giuliani do so well in the national primary polls, but not as well in Iowa polls, imo). I think it would also mean that candidate would spend more on TV ads and media, and less time going to small towns.

What about having "clusters" of primaries that are rotated every election, with each cluster representing the variety in our states? For example in 2008...

1st primary: California, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Delaware, Maine, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Hawaii
2nd primary day: Oregon, Colorado, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, South Dakota and Alaska
etc

Then in 2012, the Oregon cluster would be rotated to the top spot, the California cluster would be rotated to the last spot and so on.

I think one of the very few things Republicans and Democrats could agree on is that "Iowa ALWAYS 1st arrangement" doesn't seem to be very fair to the rest of the country. I am not sure what a better plan is, and how hard that would be to implement.

[Lasher]

1. About anything would be an improvement

I favor a single primary election day for everyone but if this were at least rotated as you suggest it would be a step in the right direction.

[skipos]

4. Do you agree that the single primary day

would probably favor candidates with name recognition and money even more than Iowa 1st? The candidates would all try to buy ads and get on MSM, and if MSM didn't want to talk about you, you'd be screwed. At least with the Iowa 1st plan, there is a chance for dark horse candidate emerging that national MSM ignored. That is what happened with Kerry. Huckleberry has very little money, and much less exposure than many Repubs, but if he comes in 1st or 2nd in IA, he would be thrust into the limelight. It seems like such dark horse candidacies would be less likely in a national primary situations.

If Kucinich came in 2nd in IA in 2008, he would get tons of coverage and voters would give him serious consideration, maybe he could win NH with that momentum. If he came in 2nd in a national primary, there would be no chance for him to be President.

[Lasher]

16. Yes, a single primary would be more favorable to candidates with name recognition and money.

But fair elections are inconvenient. Every argument you have offered in favor of separate primaries applies also to the general election. How would you feel about running it the same way?

[skipos]

18. I think the scheduling of our primaries a bigger problem that the scheduling of

the general election, as far as the major parties are concerned. In the general election, you have two candidates from the majors, in the primary there are about 15-20 to root through.

Now, if you wanted to talk about the problems of our general elections in regards to 3rd parties, that is another issue and a big one at that. Instant runoff voting seems like the most realistic, best way to go.

[Lasher]

21. The number of candidates does not negate these similarities.

Name recognition is a factor even when there are only two candidates. Money matters even more than that in the general election.

And if you think MSM bias doesn't matter in general elections, just think back to 2000 when they portrayed Gore as a lying fool for having claimed he invented the internet (He never said that BTW). They gave Junior a pass on everything, including lying about his DUI conviction. The same thing happened in 2004. The swift boat liars got coverage anytime they wanted with almost no fact checking and Junior got another pass.

And if a less popular presidential candidate came in first in Iowa in a separate general election that could improve his or her chances, exactly like the Kucinich scenario you offered above.

In citing these parallels I have hoped to illustrate the basic unfairness of separate primaries, in that they give a few voters at least a degree of authority to decide on behalf of us all who the winner will be. It is wrong to infer that conditions of the primary and general elections are essentially dissimilar for the sake of this discussion.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. The general election is quite different, actually

Candidates in the primaries are limited by their own fundraising and their own resources. This is not the case in the general election. Candidates get approximately $70 million from the government to run their campaigns (assuming that they don't opt out) and they have a party machine firmly behind them. Because they have these resources they are able to compete in a system where all of the states vote on the same day.

[Lasher]

26. Does name recognition give a candidate an advantage in the general election?

How about if they have more money? Or how about if they have the MSM in their pocket?

Of course these things matter in the general election. But very few people would be in favor of running the general election the same as the primaries because that would effectively disenfranchise some voters. See, that's why we dont' get to hear election results until all polls close - so that west coast voters won't be inappropriately influenced.

If a staggered general election would be wrong, then it's wrong for the primaries for the same reasons.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. There's a difference between an advantage and making it impossible for some candidates to compete

A national primary day would make it impossible for anybody but big money candidates to compete effectively. In the general election, both candidates can compete effectively even though one may have advantages over another.

[Lasher]

35. If it is bad for one candidate to have an advantage over another...

then why is it that the general election would not be improved by using staggered dates, starting in Iowa? Even if the opportunity for improvement is not as significant, why won't you endorse the same system for general elections? It's not because there are no similarities.

[skipos]

36. I can guarantee the media is going to talk about the two candidates in the G.E.

but ignore half of the Dem and Republican candidates in the primaries. Staggering the primaries can help a dark horse Dem or Rep. There won't be a dark horse Dem or Rep in the general election, so staggering that isn't as helpful (to Dems and Reps). I think changing the primaries to a rotating 1st state plan or something else is realistic. The other 47 states are getting sick of IA, NH and SC running the show. I don't see any demand for a staggered general election.

Want to know the best way to find some one who represents the people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
Unfortunately, it is to complicated for anyone to get behind it, and therefore an unrealistic goal.

[bryant69]

2. It does seem like the strangle hold of New Hampshire and Iowa is about to be broken

It was always funny watching Republicans decry New England except for New Hampshire - I'll miss that.

But yeah - I like that rotation strategy. That seems like it would help even it out. People do like the horse race quality of the run, but the upshot is that states later in the primary season aren't that important.

Bryant

[TwilightGardener]

3. No. I often work in small towns in Iowa. Decent people, but not representative

of the rest of the country by a long shot.

[supernova]

5. No I don't

They don't represent a majority of Americans' lives anymore. They're more rural, more white, and more insular in general than the majority of the US anymore. They are the exception now, not the rule. So that's why we get candidates who are skewed to cater to Iowa and New Hampshire, yet tend to hamstring the rest of the nation.

Some time ago, someone else on DU mentioned they thought the primaries ought to rotate every election so that you'd get a new "first" primary state every time. I think that would be a good idea.

[skipos]

9. To rotate the 1st state means some state is going to have to wait 200 years to be 1st

That's why I liked some sort of cluster idea better.

[redqueen]

6. No. Why not a national primary day?

[skipos]

7. Look at my post #4 above. nt

[redqueen]

8. Yeah, I read that after I responded.

:blush:

I see the point you make there... so in light of that caveat, perhaps supernova's idea is the best one.

[Lasher]

17. And I read this after I replied to post #4.

Don't blush.



Like I said upthread rotating the primaries (supernova's idea) would be an improvement.

[CK_John]

10. I think a rotating regional group would be the way to go, but. . . 50 states would need to agree.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. No. But is fun to see millionaires trying to act like "just folks".

I'm in favor of a national primary after a severely limited campaign in which only debates are televised.

But, considering that politicians make the laws that keep them in power..any of the above can be safely put on the "fat chance" shelf.

[Frances]

13. I could not be more AGAINST a national primary day

I think that having primaries spread out makes it easier to see how a candidate reacts under different stresses over an extended period of time.

For those people who think that it's not fair for the same three states to always go first, I am open to rotating three other states in different parts of the country.

But I like having the primaries in relatively small states so that the candidates and the voters get to know each other.

I live in California now and our state is just too big geographically and too expensive for any candidate to interact with very many people. I think that's why actors have been so successful as politicians here. They start out with name recognition and their buddies in the radio and TV media have them on their shows for free.

[On the Road]

12. I Don't Mind Rotating the First Few States

provided that they're all small states in different parts of the country. The retail, in-person nature of IA and NH are just as important to me as geographic diversity. Having California, Florida, and New York first eliminates retail politics as effectively as a national primary.

Maybe there could be a lottery giving higher weight to smaller states and forcing some regional distribution. Nothing wrong with beginning with Hawaii, Wyoming, and Rhode Island next time.

[CK_John]

14. Please note each state will have to agree and pass legislation accepting any change. n/t

[On the Road]

15. That's the Sticky Part --

States are likely to want to move up in the process, but resist being moved back. On the other hand, it's up to the parties whether to accept the delegates chosen in the primary. Imposing a rank order might work, but it will not be easy.

[MrCoffee]

19. personally, i like Iowa first...

yes, the primary system is flawed, but having IA and NH early allows candidates with less in the campaign coffers to focus on relatively small markets and gives them a realistic chance to shake up the entire race.

[Toucano]

20. I don't understand why it makes a difference.

If people aren't going to think for themselves, then no plan matters.

This BS that whoever wins Iowa (or whatever state votes first) wins the nomination is a media invention.

Review the 1992 primary: (from Wiki)

"Harkin had an early victory in his home state of Iowa, a contest that was largely uncontested by the other candidates, but fared poorly elsewhere. Tsongas emerged as the early front runner and won the New Hampshire Primary. During the summer of 1991, Clinton had been polling strongly, but a collection of sex scandals exploded and during the winter he plummeted to single digit support. After finishing a surprisingly strong second in New Hampshire he was proclaimed to be the "comeback kid" and gained a great deal of momentum. Meanwhile, Tsongas, having started as a longshot candidate, won several primaries (Maryland, Arizona, Washington, and Utah), but found that there was insufficient time to accumulate funds after his surprise New Hampshire win (this was before internet fundraising existed as a possibility), and withdrew before certain large-state primaries (most notably, New York and Illinois). Meanwhile, Brown, who had done so poorly in the early primaries was about to lose his matching funds, unexpectedly emerged victorious in Colorado.

Clinton won a major victory in Illinois and began to sweep the rest of the country, when as part of a minor backlash Brown won in Connecticut. There was a show-down brewing in New York between the two rivals, when a group of people decided to force Tsongas, who was still on the ballot there, back in the race. This was surprisingly successful, and Tsongas came in a close second, effectively ending Brown's challenge. The rest of the primary campaign unfolded uneventfully."

Anything can happen. People in New York or Illinois don't automatically say, "Well I was supporting Clinton but since Obama won Iowa, I guess I support Obama now."

This "herd mentality" isn't (or wasn't always) true.

In 1988, Gephardt won Iowa, Dukakas won New Hampshire and Jackson won South Carolina.

Anything can happen. Who goes first makes no real difference.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. That's the old days, front loading has given Iowa and New Hampshire much more power

Ending front loading, IMO, is an easy fix to this problem. Iowa and New Hampshire would certainly still have influence weeding out candidates but California and New York would be where the two or three remaining candidates get to duke it out.

[skipos]

32. Then why not rotate the 1st states?

One big difference between rotating vs. IA, NH, SC 1st is...
at least people in other states could have a reason to get involved in the party politics. There is less reason for someone in CA to be interested in their candidates if they will ultimately have no say in who they are.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. In an ideal world here's what I'd like to see

A national primary day with party imposed spending caps so that all candidates have the same amount of money. Once a candidate wins the amount of delegates needed to secure the nomination they may break the spending cap in order to begin campaigning against the Republicans before the convention.

[book_worm]

25. I don't know of a better system really. If we have clusters of big primaries first then

candidates who can't raise a ton of money will be at an unfair advantage. If big states like California and New York were to open the contests retail campaiginging would be gone and done with and candidates would have to campaign by television. I see nothing so wrong with starting with Iowa, NH and South Carolina. The problem is that voters in other states shouldn't allow the media to annoint a nominee based on only those three states.

[Quantess]

27. I think every state primary should be on the same day.

[bigwillq]

39. Me too!

:)

[Fleshdancer]

28. I have no idea if this is possible but.....

I would like to see a spending cap for all primary candidates and then move the conventions up and have the delegates vote for who wins the nomination. This way, people from every state has a say every time.

I haven't put too much thought in this idea so I'm sure there are many reasons why this wouldn't work, but brainstorming is fun.

[zanne]

29. YES!

What did you think I'd say?

[skipos]

31. I think you should say "I recognize that most people in most states have no say

who their party nominates, and even though it benefits me, it isn't fair." That's what I would say if I lived in NH, IA and SC. At the very least, the first states should be rotated. Can you explain to me why rotating the 1st states less fair than always having IA, NH and SC first?

[zanne]

34. I never said it was fair.....

But I like it.

[hedgehog]

30. I like the idea of rotating regional clusters.

Forcing a candidate to cover California, Wisconsin and Louisiana would favor whoever starts with the big money, IMO. Better to even the playing field by making money less of an issue. For example - New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey would be reasonable. How about Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida? Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas? California should get its own primary day, IMO.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Folks complaining that small states are under-represented don't understand how the U.S. Senate Works

As long as 400,000 Wyoming Residents control the same 1/50th slice of the Senate that 33 Million Californians do, 'under-represented' small state residents can cry me a river.

[bigwillq]

38. No

All the primaries should be held on one day in March or April. Most times the nominee is inevitable by the time I get to vote in CT in February.
IN 2004, my sister didn't really have a fave but voted for Kerry b/c she knew he was going to get the nomination.

Why should these early states have so much influence? :shrug:
I like that rotating sked though.