Democratic caucuses and primaries

Delphic Oracle said:
Answered already, but clarifying.

Correct that a law in NH can't prevent Indiana from doing something.

It compels the Office of the Secretary of State (or whoever governs elections in NH) to be first.
Click to expand...

Well yeah but you don't have to follow that too far to see the inherent absurdity.

If three men who work at an office all declare rules for themselves that they have to be the first person to walk through the front door in the morning... it doesn't take a genius to see how that isn't going to work even if none of the 3 try to tell the other 2 what they have to do.
 
C_Felix said:
I've been AWOL.

I'm just jumping into this thread now, so if this has been discussed, I'm sorry.

Iowa state law requires that the caucuses take place at least eight days before any other nominating contest.

New Hampshire state law requires that its primary must be the first in the nation.


What if Ohio were to pass a law requiring that its primary must be the first in the nation.
Or North Carolina?
Or Texas?


From my basic knowledge of things, can't Ohio pass a law requiring it to be first and then tell NH to take its "we're first" law and to cram it because NH laws can't influence how Ohio works, right?


It might be tradition, but tradition is peer pressure exuded on you by dead people.
Click to expand...
I think some states tried that a few cycles ago but the party stepped in and refused to accept their delegates. May have been an earlier post in this thread explaining it better.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No eventually one state would just hit the brick wall that there is only so far back you can move something before you reverse lap yourself and wind up in the previous election cycle at which point the whole stupid thing would collapse.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
Well yeah but you don't have to follow that too far to see the inherent absurdity.

If three men who work at an office all declare rules for themselves that they have to be the first person to walk through the front door in the morning... it doesn't take a genius to see how that isn't going to work even if none of the 3 try to tell the other 2 what they have to do.
Click to expand...

This is kinda where I was going.

Is there a chance that "we" might push have some primaries in December? (Which would be dumb and self-defeating)
 
C_Felix said:
This is kinda where I was going.

Is there a chance that "we" might push have some primaries in December? (Which would be dumb and self-defeating)
Click to expand...

At this point I'm dead serious when I say in a couple of decades at most the election/campaign cycle will literally have extended to the point that it's always happening, and in the foreground of politics not the background.
 
Brainster said:
Wow. I think the primaries serve a purpose (to see if the candidates can actually get people to vote for them), but I am 100% in agreement that the primary process should inform the convention, but not rule it. Still, never going to happen.

But like D4m10n, I am curious how this reconciles with your other beliefs on the electoral college and the Senate.
Click to expand...

These are political parties not government institutions. Most political parties do not choose their candidates by election. I have no problem with that part of the process not being democratic. And in my mind, primaries don't necessarily produce the best candidates.
 
acbytesla said:
These are political parties not government institutions. Most political parties do not choose their candidates by election. I have no problem with that part of the process not being democratic. And in my mind, primaries don't necessarily produce the best candidates.
Click to expand...

I have concerns with "privatized" control of political participation. Any institution the state gives control in this arena over to needs to be held to the same standard we would demand if the government itself were overseeing the process.

My understanding is they do nominate by election.

How delegates that vote are determined and in which ways they can do so are highly controlled, however.

In a sense, the delegate voting is a lot like the electoral college. At the direction of the candidate they are pledged to, they can vote another way.
 
C_Felix said:
This is kinda where I was going.

Is there a chance that "we" might push have some primaries in December? (Which would be dumb and self-defeating)
Click to expand...

Yes. There is literally, technically a chance that could happen.

But there's not much appetite for doing it, since things are already about as stretched as people care to stretch them.

You're asking these questions. What's the nature of your concern?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I have concerns with "privatized" control of political participation. Any institution the state gives control in this arena over to needs to be held to the same standard we would demand if the government itself were overseeing the process.

My understanding is they do nominate by election.

How delegates that vote are determined and in which ways they can do so are highly controlled, however.

In a sense, the delegate voting is a lot like the electoral college. At the direction of the candidate they are pledged to, they can vote another way.
Click to expand...

There are dozens of political parties. But how each chooses their candidates varies by party and state. Most, you have to belong to the party and must attend meetings and perhaps statewide conventions. And the process has changed dramatically and continues to change so perhaps I've overstated how undemocratic it is today.

I'm just not a fan of the primary process today. It's more about money and advertising then it is about deciding what is best for the country and who the best candidate is.
 
theprestige said:
Yes. There is literally, technically a chance that could happen.

But there's not much appetite for doing it, since things are already about as stretched as people care to stretch them.

You're asking these questions. What's the nature of your concern?
Click to expand...

Just pure curiosity around the idea of "We have a law that makes us first!" and how all that works.

And I was also thinking about reductio ad absurdum with the pissing matches that could ensue if Michigan tries to trump NH.


And thanks for explaining how Ohio can schedule itself before NH, but then NH will be forced to move their primary.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
I think some states tried that a few cycles ago but the party stepped in and refused to accept their delegates. May have been an earlier post in this thread explaining it better.
Click to expand...

Yes, in 2008, both Florida and Michigan tried to jump to the front of the line. The DNC responded by initially refusing to seat the delegates. They later reinstated them but cut their votes in half.
 
acbytesla said:
There are dozens of political parties. But how each chooses their candidates varies by party and state. Most, you have to belong to the party and must attend meetings and perhaps statewide conventions. And the process has changed dramatically and continues to change so perhaps I've overstated how undemocratic it is today.

I'm just not a fan of the primary process today. It's more about money and advertising then it is about deciding what is best for the country and who the best candidate is.
Click to expand...

Basically, you are in favor of limiting the franchise in choosing a party candidate.
So do you advocate liminting the franchsie in the general election?
 
Brainster said:
Yes, in 2008, both Florida and Michigan tried to jump to the front of the line. The DNC responded by initially refusing to seat the delegates. They later reinstated them but cut their votes in half.
Click to expand...

At least Florida and the Great State of Michigan have a lot of people. It makes sense to throw them a frickin bone. But yeah, I think soon the elections will be held similarly to how Olympic bids are made. You will have to bid two or three cycles down the line.
 
dudalb said:
I would say have all the primaries on one day, but I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...
When you have a primary with a more than 2 or 3 candidates, and all votes were held on the same day, it would be very rare for one person to obtain a majority (or even a strong plurality). Thus, you might end up with various back-room deals in order for the various candidates to consolidate support.

You would need some sort of tie-breaking mechanism (perhaps a series of run-off votes, and/or a ranked ballot). But since candidates compete for delegates at a state level, any sort of run-off or ranked ballot will be complex.
 
dudalb said:
I would say have all the primaries on one day, but I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

If we are going to keep primaries, I think that makes the most sense. I'd also have it much closer to the general. We really need to shorten this process man.
 
acbytesla said:
There are dozens of political parties. But how each chooses their candidates varies by party and state. Most, you have to belong to the party and must attend meetings and perhaps statewide conventions. And the process has changed dramatically and continues to change so perhaps I've overstated how undemocratic it is today.

I'm just not a fan of the primary process today. It's more about money and advertising then it is about deciding what is best for the country and who the best candidate is.
Click to expand...
Getting on the ballot has to be an open process. Fill out form XCYA164b and pay a nominal fee or gather x signatures.

Getting that party's winning vote probably requires going to meetings and knowing them (small parties, that is). If you actually want to attain office. You appear on the ballot as a D or R and give 12-14 hours of life a day to meeting a few key players and amassing a war chest to buy ads.

Needing to be a declared party member does have impact where primaries are closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom