Democratic caucuses and primaries

Maybe this FUBAR will make some counties work harder to make sure that the actual elections run smoothly.
 
acbytesla said:
I have no idea. Having been involved in caucus held in my state, I know that isn't how they worked in Washington. The caucuses elected delegates to attend the state convention and the delegates at the State convention decided the allotment of delegates to the National convention. Horse trading can and does take place. I don't like the primary system. I'd rather return to caucuses in all the states.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It is?!?!?!

Holy **** !!!

Now I totally hate it and/or love it, depending on how you need me to react, in order to satisfy whatever need prompted you to post this inanity.

I hope this helps. Have a nice day!
Click to expand...

Translation: "****, got caught. Try to blame it on the guy who caught me!"
 
We can perch upon our moral and political mountains and argue from them all day, but nothing will change the fact that a system, regardless of its qualities, where a tipping point of people aren't happy with how the decision is reached is only slightly better at best then a system where a tipping point of people aren't happy with the decision being reached.

A smoke and mirrors act that gets the "right" answer isn't ideal.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We can perch upon our moral and political mountains and argue from them all day, but nothing will change the fact that a system, regardless of its qualities, where a tipping point of people aren't happy with how the decision is reached is only slightly better at best then a system where a tipping point of people aren't happy with the decision being reached.

A smoke and mirrors act that gets the "right" answer isn't ideal.
Click to expand...

Call it the Martin Gardner in me, but there is no single "best" way to determine the winner in a multi-candidate runnoff.

You define the terms ahead of time and then live with the results. That's what has been done.

The only actual issue in this case is that the results have not been reported fast enough to satisfy the 24 cable news channels. It's true, the results have not been reported in a timely fashion. That's only as much of a problem as you make it.
 
New Hampshire state law requires that its primary must be the first in the nation.

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.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
How can a state pass a law requiring other states to do something?
Click to expand...

The law requires that if some other state moves up their primary date, the government of New Hampshire is required to move theirs up to be earlier. It doesn't prescribe actions for other states. It prescribes responses to actions for the state of New Hampshire.
 
theprestige said:
The law requires that if some other state moves up their primary date, the government of New Hampshire is required to move theirs up to be earlier. It doesn't prescribe actions for other states. It prescribes responses to actions for the state of New Hampshire.
Click to expand...

So, a pissing match can ensue?
If Indiana moves their primary to the last Thursday in January...then NH must move theirs?
 
C_Felix said:
So, a pissing match can ensue?
If Indiana moves their primary to the last Thursday in January...then NH must move theirs?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom