GOP seeks order to primary chaos

[HuskyCaucasian]

Not sure where this would go, so I created a new thread...

 

GOP seeks order to primary chaos

First IA, NH, SC, NV... A group of 15 small states and five territories would vote next. Then would come regional groupings roughly divided into a Midwest/Eastern region, a Southern region and a Western region. These regional groups would rotate every four years to see which region goes first.

[Texsox]

The best path to a solution I've heard in a long time.

[EvilMonkey]

There really needs to be SOME sort of change made. With few exceptions, most of the later states don't really get a say in the primaries, as it is USUALLY locked up by then. How many times has Indiana had a primary vote that mattered? That should change.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[southsider2k5]

The interesting one will be to see what the Dems do to ensure that their mess doesn't happen again. Their primary has been a complete disaster.

[lostfan]

The interesting one will be to see what the Dems do to ensure that their mess doesn't happen again. Their primary has been a complete disaster.

Start by getting rid of the superdelegates. Without them factored in I'd have to venture to guess this would be pretty much over by now. Oh, and that 6-week lull before PA. That was just unbearable.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The interesting one will be to see what the Dems do to ensure that their mess doesn't happen again. Their primary has been a complete disaster.

1) Use the GOP model. (Note: due to the cost of the primary system, if one party makes a change, the other party almost always has to follow)

2) DUMP THE SUPERDELEGATES!

[lostfan]

1) Use the GOP model. (Note: due to the cost of the primary system, if one party makes a change, the other party almost always has to follow)

2) DUMP THE SUPERDELEGATES!

I prefer the Dems' dividing the system up proportionally to the GOP's winner take all system, it's the most democratic and encourages them to campaign evenly to get as many votes as possible instead of just surrendering in states where the demographics don't favor them. Otherwise you'd have never seen Obama campaigning in Texas, Ohio, PA, you would've never seen Pander Bear campaigning in NC or anywhere else in the Deep South.

Edited May 6, 2008 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

1) Use the GOP model. (Note: due to the cost of the primary system, if one party makes a change, the other party almost always has to follow)

2) DUMP THE SUPERDELEGATES!

 

The interesting thing is that the whole reason for the superdelegates was to give the Dems a power to decide the primary if needed. Well the power has been pretty worthless in getting rid of Hillary, so the whole system ends up being worthless.

[Texsox]

Let me toss out an alternate thought to be destroyed:

 

The problem with open primaries is a hard core conservative, Pat Robertson can help select the Dem candidate by voting and Jesse Jackson can help the GOP. The primaries are costly, extend the campaign for a couple years.

 

So we can vote twice? Why?

 

Eliminate primaries and go back to conventions and allow the true members of the party to pick a candidate. Have the conventions in July. Campaign in August, September, and October, vote in November. Move on.

[EvilMonkey]

We do national elections on one day, why not primaries on one day as well? 3 months campaigning and debates, then primary election.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I prefer the Dems' dividing the system up proportionally to the GOP's winner take all system, it's the most democratic and encourages them to campaign evenly to get as many votes as possible instead of just surrendering in states where the demographics don't favor them. Otherwise you'd have never seen Obama campaigning in Texas, Ohio, PA, you would've never seen Pander Bear campaigning in NC or anywhere else in the Deep South.

sorry. I meant the model of how the primaries are staged, not how the delegates are awarded. i like the democratic model better on that.

[HuskyCaucasian]

We do national elections on one day, why not primaries on one day as well? 3 months campaigning and debates, then primary election.

I once thought that too. But dont forget, a national primary day requires several month of nation wide campaigning that is VERY exspensive. That means people either need to raise a TON of money very early, or they need to be independently wealthy.

 

If this model were used this year, we'd probably have Clinton v Romney or Guiliani. McCain would NEVER have had a chance and Obama would have been way behind Clinton. Remember, he had money, but Iowa gave him a springboard. I said before Iowa that if Obama lost, it was all over... but if he could win it would give him a fighting chance.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Texsox]

We do national elections on one day, why not primaries on one day as well? 3 months campaigning and debates, then primary election.

 

Why should we vote twice? And why should it be divided between parties? Why not just list everyone running and take the top two? If that happens to be two Reps, why not? If they were the two top vote getters.

[StrangeSox]

Why should we vote twice? And why should it be divided between parties? Why not just list everyone running and take the top two? If that happens to be two Reps, why not? If they were the two top vote getters.

 

The primaries are for party members to pick who their party's candidate will be, not for Americans to decide who the President will be.

[Texsox]

The primaries are for party members to pick who their party's candidate will be, not for Americans to decide who the President will be.

 

OK. How do they decide who is a party member? Again, Rush can pick up a Dem ballot and Sharpton can grab a GOP. How is that the members picking the candidate? I understand the Dem super delegates. At least down here they are elected officials (current or past), organizers, county party chair, and large campaign contributors. They are truly members of the party. But if the GOP campaign was still close in Texas, I would be a member of the GOP party based on my last vote. And y'all know that would be a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

I would not be surprised if Kap grabbed a Dem ballot. Not much was in play on the GOP side in Texas. Kap is a knowledgable voter who knew as much or more about the Dem candidates. But his values, and those of who we would call a "dem party member" are probably not the same. Is the system really correct when anyone can select either party nominee?

[StrangeSox]

OK. How do they decide who is a party member? Again, Rush can pick up a Dem ballot and Sharpton can grab a GOP. How is that the members picking the candidate? I understand the Dem super delegates. At least down here they are elected officials (current or past), organizers, county party chair, and large campaign contributors. They are truly members of the party. But if the GOP campaign was still close in Texas, I would be a member of the GOP party based on my last vote. And y'all know that would be a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

I would not be surprised if Kap grabbed a Dem ballot. Not much was in play on the GOP side in Texas. Kap is a knowledgable voter who knew as much or more about the Dem candidates. But his values, and those of who we would call a "dem party member" are probably not the same. Is the system really correct when anyone can select either party nominee?

 

You self-identify with your party of choice. This round of primaries has brought out some flaws in the current system, namely that disingenuous voters can cross over and vote solely to cause disruption. More often than not, however, that is not the case. Republican voters picked the Republican candidate. A closed primary tries to get around disingenuous voters but has the potential to exclude independent voters who may be genuinely interested in a certain candidate.

[Texsox]

You self-identify with your party of choice. This round of primaries has brought out some flaws in the current system, namely that disingenuous voters can cross over and vote solely to cause disruption. More often than not, however, that is not the case. Republican voters picked the Republican candidate. A closed primary tries to get around disingenuous voters but has the potential to exclude independent voters who may be genuinely interested in a certain candidate.

 

And that becomes the circular problem.

 

As noted earlier, the primary is for party members to select a candidate. By definition an independent is not part of a party, yet they are voting. So if it is just to see who the top two vote getters are, why not just list all the candidates and go from there?

[StrangeSox]

And that becomes the circular problem.

 

As noted earlier, the primary is for party members to select a candidate. By definition an independent is not part of a party, yet they are voting. So if it is just to see who the top two vote getters are, why not just list all the candidates and go from there?

 

Because its not to see who the overall top two are. Its to see who the top Dem. and Rep. (and other parties) are. In your situation, the "winners" would have a small percentage of the vote since the "pie" would be shared with more people. You'd almost need automatic run offs (3 pts for first choice, 2 for second, 1 for third type voting).

 

Edited May 6, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Because its not to see who the overall top two are. Its to see who the top Dem. and Rep. (and other parties) are. In your situation, the "winners" would have a small percentage of the vote since the "pie" would be shared with more people. You'd almost need automatic run offs (3 pts for first choice, 2 for second, 1 for third type voting).

 

OK, then still run one ballot and take the top Dem, top Rep, top Green Party, whatever. But drop the pretense of being the members selecting who they want to represent their party.

[YASNY]

I believe the individual states should continue to have the right to determine their own rules.

[southsider2k5]

I believe the individual states should continue to have the right to determine their own rules.

 

Because this is not the actual election, this is not a states rights issue IMO. Because the parties are still determining their candidates for the general election at this time, I do believe it is still up to the parties to decide how they want to handle things.

[StrangeSox]

Because this is not the actual election, this is not a states rights issue IMO. Because the parties are still determining their candidates for the general election at this time, I do believe it is still up to the parties to decide how they want to handle things.

 

Within the current structure, the state parties still have the right to determine what they will do. IE, Illinois Democratic Party can choose to have a different method than the Ohio Democratic Party. There's nothing that says it has to be that way, though. If the Democrats wanted, they could say "Howard Dean picks the candidate" and that would be that.