Our Primary System

L

lg_mouth

New member
I am just curious as to why every state doesn't hold its primaries on the same day? I live in OH, mine doesn't take place until March 4th, so I am pretty much irrelevant in this. Seems odd that a select few states get to decide who the rest of the country gets to vote for.

Lg_mouth
 
Relatively recent that NH ans Iowa are out front, but states always have set their own primary dates, because these really are not national elections, they select state representatives of a party to go to a party-run convention.
 
The crazy part is, if the votes are close, then none of the primary's will matter. It will all be decided in Smokey rooms after delegates are released. Happened before and may happen this time.
 
Maybe not the intention, but..

...they have turned it into a few states making the decision for all. According to my research, the last time a presidential candidate wasn't clear until the convention was Ford in '76. So it seems to me that for the last 32 years, some Americans have been getting the shaft.

Like I said, by March 4th, when my primary is, there will more than likely only be 2 candidates left, maybe even one. So me and my fellow Ohioans and every other state after Super Tuesday isn't getting a fair shake.

Lg_mouth
 
national primary day

I'm for a national primary day. I'd like to be able to vote for any of the potential candidates and not be dictated to by voters in a few states as to who my choices are.
 
Sounds good to me

Sounds like a good plan to me, but somehow I don't think it will ever happen. We seem to have a weird philosophy in this country that if something is working fine, we mess with it, but if something is screwed up we come up with a dozen different excuses not to fix it. Don't get me wrong, I love my country, but really dislike the way we handle some things.

Lg_mouth
 
A national primary day would mean that Mike Huckabee would be totally off the radar.

A few early states mean that candidates will smaller cash flows can still pull off a respectable campaign. You're not trying to sway every republican/democrat all at once - just a few million at a time.

To compete at a national level for a national primary day, you probably would need yachtloads of $$$. Or essentially, a Republican primary of Romney vs. himself.
 
meanwhile

I don't even get the chance to vote for Thompson, Edwards, Giuliani, et al.
Why because someone in Florida, South Carolina, Iowa, or New Hampshire says I can't. Not exactly the way I see the Constitution: some get to vote and the rest don't.

If we were talking about RKBA issues most would be outraged that only a few got to make the decisions while the rest of us pound sand.
 
I don't even get the chance to vote for Thompson, Edwards, Giuliani, et al.
Why because someone in Florida, South Carolina, Iowa, or New Hampshire says I can't. Not exactly the way I see the Constitution: some get to vote and the rest don't.

If we were talking about RKBA issues most would be outraged that only a few got to make the decisions while the rest of us pound sand.
Click to expand...

Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about getting to choose from a wide range of nominees among your party. Heck, it didn't say much about who got to vote in general Presidential elections right off the bat. You still have every chance to vote from among anybody that chooses to get their name on the ballot; or, alternately, you can write in anybody you choose. There is nothing in particular keeping Thompson, Edwards, etc. from getting on the ticket as an independent or from another party, unless perhaps your state won't let them (in which case that's an issue with your state, not New Hampshire or Florida).

I know for certain that the Constitution says precisely jack squat about how the Republicans or Democrats (or any other party, past present or future) chooses their nominees. It doesn't say anything about political parties in general, to my knowledge...but I suppose I may be mistaken on that one.

The Democratic and Republican parties are private organizations, and they can choose their nominees as they see fit. If you have an issue it's with the Republican party [EDIT: or Democratic, sorry for presuming], and the Constitution has very little to do with it.


Also, between SC, FL, NH, IA, NV, etc. you're actually starting to get at least a somewhat broad cross-section of the country...so anybody lagging after those five states should probably consider dropping out anyway; they'd probably not have fared well on Super Tuesday. But regardless, nothing made them do so before then; they could easily have hung in for as long as they chose, just as Huckabee and Paul have chosen to.
 
OH then

if we look back in history we find the process has been altered every time one state plays this move the primary date game. Who to say next time Alaska, Hawaii, Rhode Island should not hold primaries on January 2 and set the pace. At the rate states are changing date the one day national primary will become a default in forty years.

I do know the Constitution actually gives the entire process to the Electoral College in the end. And in reality they can elect anyone if they want to.


JC I also no reference to parties nor any limit as to how many can run for the presidency. All I read is the age and citizenship aligned with the no felony convictions part and a few other issues as the qualifiers.
 
www.rangevoting.org

A voting system that eliminates the problem with "spoiler" candidates eliminates the need for primaries.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would seem as though just about any voting method would probably be preferable to the one we use now. Though if anybody ever wants to really break their brain they should start actually looking into the mathematics of voting; it's not nearly as simple as it might seem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top