Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Primaries should all be held on the same day.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
hippywife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:03 PM
Original message
The Primaries should all be held on the same day.
Edited on Sat Feb-21-04 04:04 PM by hippywife
Agree or Disagree? What are the upsides and downsides to this proposal.

I think it would stop the horse race that seems to be going on and people would vote their consciences rather than who seems to be ahead so far.

(Edited for typo.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ninga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. All of the big fat old white men can not comprehend
such a thoughtful and insightful suggestion. Don't forget, they are the ones who run everything.

I think it's a great idea.

Oh, my gosh, I just had another thought. Same day primaries might even the playing field!!!

Forget, never will happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedoll78 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Agree.
Unfortunately, I put this into the same category as making Election Day a national holiday.. it probably won't happen anytime soon.. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. You'd have to have one hell of a warchest to manage that feat
one small step at a time seems best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippywife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. How so?
Edited on Sat Feb-21-04 04:17 PM by hippywife
As far as I can see, the campaigning would still go on as it now does it would all just end on the same day. I'm not really sure how the schedule evolved as it did (someone inform me if you do know) but it seems that it may have evolved to give the candidates time to make their cases to the country in an age where mass communication and mass transit weren't what they are now and it was most necessary to travel as far and wide as possible.

If that is the case, since those obstables have all but been removed, what would be the point in keeping the primary schedule staggered the way it is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buckeye1 Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Ageed.
Tinkering with process will not turn the losers into winners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lupita Donating Member (397 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. The primaries are giving us a lot of free media attention
That isn't helping Bush at all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhunt70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. disagree- all smaller states vote on same day. Major states a week later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippywife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. And what set of arbitrary standards
would be used to divide them that way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mohc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Disagree
Among the downsides:
It would pretty much eliminate the chances of a truly insurgent candidate. One would have to either raise an enormous amount of money to flood the markets with ads or already have a high name recognition. Especially in the case of this year, it would reduce the amount of attention given to the process. We could not simply tell the media we are having a single primary day with a 4 month season leading up to it and expect them to cover it. They would wait until the week before to cover the race, and basically that week would decide who wins. All the time up until then would simply be setting up the starting positions in the race. Although IA and NH might not be the best gauges to use, they do allow for "retail" politics, and I do believe it is good that candidates have to meet the people up close at some point in the election.

The main benefit that a national primary would have is that it reduces regional biases and the momentum built upon them. Instead of making all the primaries on the same day, we should keep the basic structure of the current system but address those two issues. Momentum is a problem because the elections are so close together, and regional bias is a problem because the dates of the primaries are arbitrary. What I believe we should do is spread the primaries out by having only one date a month, say the second Tuesday of the month from January until June (6 dates). And to eliminate regional bias, states should be put into 6 groups of 8 or 9 states each that balance things out, and they can be rotated around from year to year. If IA and NH throw a hissy fit, we could put them alone in Jan and just rotate the 5 other groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Agree
this would be the only fair way to hold Primaries. I am sure we could find a way to make this feasible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. Disagree. Richest guy would alwasy win. You need to let people
roll out their messages in a way that isn't too expensive. How we do it is good enough. All on the same day would be terrible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. Better, more feasible idea
Let people use a better voting system in the primaries. Condorcet lets people vote their conscience and fully express their sentiments for the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mohc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. That would not work well in a primary
While I supported you in another thread on this topic, neither Condorcet or even IRV is designed well for a primary. We allocate delegates based on the percentage of votes a candidate received, subject to a minimum threshold. Condorcet and IRV can easily be used to decide a winner, but not to assign a percentage. I do not believe we want to use a winner-take-all system at the primary level, nor would we want to get rid of the delegate system and just have voters in all states collectively decide a winner. We have to use a system which assigns a percentage, and our current system does that. Keep in mind, the primary system is NOT FPTP, it is only presented that way by the media. Basically, its APTP (All) with the post being 15%. IRV is somewhat similar to how caucuses worked in Iowa, and that would probably work out well, where IRV only is applied when a candidate fails to get past the post it reassigns that support. But for candidates that get over 15% but not a majority, we should not reassign their support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You could rework the way delegates are apportioned
While you do have an excellent point, and one I hadn't considered, it is resolvable. You could base it on beatpath strength... in fact, if I get some time, I may work out an algorithm for doing just that.

I refuse to support IRV in any context, because it is drastically worse than even FPTP voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jansu Donating Member (473 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. Yes, or Don't report the results until all Primaries are finished!
Would be hard, you would have to pass laws making it illegal for anyone to report any exit polls etc. The punishment would have to be horrendous, to stop the media. That would be fun in and of itself! But, this would take the "front runner Momentum" power out of the mix. And, it would not matter if your state voted early or later.

I would support either or both!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
morgan2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
16. how about doing them all over the period of a month or so
but not counting the votes until each state has voted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'm tired of not having a say in the primaries
except through donations and volunteer work. I wish there was some way to level the financial playing field so everyone who is running gets a chance to have their message heard. Then I'd like to see primaries lumped together, more or less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
18. How about 10 random primaries a week over a 5 week period
And make each set of random choices only a week before each primary. The primary system is obviously screwed up as is, but it's a difficult problem to solve. There's nothing special about Iowa and NH, but they always get the first shot. It's not fair at all IMO. At least we're thinking about it. The politicians apparently couldn't care less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. That would be better. But having all the primaries on the same day
would assure that the monied interests have the advantage.

Personally, I think it is unfair to give two small rural states the initial caucus exposure at the same time. At least one large population state should be in the initial primary/caucus vote. Their issues may be substantially different from the rural state electorate.

There should be some kind of rotation on the states from election year to election year, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 18th 2024, 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC