The case can be made for canceling another presidential primary in Kansas, because the whole flawed process should be dumped for a system that would give more states a say in picking the major nominees. But it’s unseemly for state lawmakers to skip a 2008 primary to save money, as the House did Friday, and dismiss its value as “essentially nothing more than a beauty contest,” in the words of state Rep. Tom Sawyer, D-Wichita. In a $12 billion state budget, $2 million for a 2008 presidential primary sounds like a modest investment in democracy. Maybe no candidates would bother to visit in advance of a Kansas primary on a February 2008 date shared with big states, but with the contest so open, polls showing the American people so engaged, and the field so full of candidates in both parties — and including Kansas-tied options such as Sam Brownback and Barack Obama — lawmakers should reconsider.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
11 Comments
Rhonda’s link doesn’t include the story that quotes Sawyer.
Does anyone have that link?
I agree the Primary is a waste to money in Kansas. People from other states will look and say, “Oh Kansas voted this and that in the primary, that’s nice. How about the more more important states vote?”
The Primaries will be over before Kansas will vote, if a primary was held in this state. Even if we bumped it up to February.
February 5th 2008, is the now Super Duper Tuesday. With many states bumping their primaries to that date, including California, there is now 20 states that will hold primaries that day and look for that to grow, and more than half the nation’s population will be representated that day as well.
We will know who the candidates are that day. No doubt. So Kansas should save its money.
Little point in a Kansas primary. This is the state that has not elected a Democrat to the Senate in more than 80 years. No one cares what Kansans think. No one should.
I believe the alternative to a special statewide presidential primary election is holding caucuses/meetings presumably in Topeka of the elected representatives of the various political partys’ precinct committee men and women.
For example, elected Republican precinct committee people of Todd Tehart’s congressional district (District #3?), including Wichita, elect representatives to that Congressional district level. Then those representatives and elected representatives from the other four Kansas Congressional districts elect representatives to the State Republican Committee.
Ditto for Democrats in Kansas and presumably other lessor political parties if they have an active political organization.
This system gives the title “grassroots politics” because precinct people are presumed to be more interested and motivated to get out and work for their political party’s platform and views than casual loosely affiliated voters.
In my opinion Wichita state legislator, Tom Sawyer, is correct in that a Kansas presidential primary election would be an expensive and unnecessary “beauty contest” between each party’s presidential candidates.
On the other hand, a state level caucus in Kansas could lean towards a “favorite son” candidate (Brownback in this case) particularly if he is perceived as helping the party in Kansas somehow.
The big advantage of the caucus or gathering of representatives of precinct committeepeople is it should save millions of dollars of taxpayer money to pay for a special statewide election.
Jwink! If no presidential primary is held, then the candidates are held at a statewide convention/caucus.
Contact the State Democrat Party for more information how you can be involved in the Kansas Democrat Convention.
Joe Williams: If you meant to say “candidates are CHOSEN at a state wide convention,” that’s what I said in my post and also explained the advantages/disadvantages of each method of selection.
Since I am a moderate Republican and was a precinct committeeman for probably 20 years, I doubt if I will be contacting the Democratic party. However, as a moderate Republican offered a lot of “conservative” Republicans on ballots, I now vote for the candidate, not the party nominee. I suspect I now vote about 50% – 50%.
We should instead insure all children under age 6 so that their uninsured parents don’t use the ER for medical care, which all of us end up having to pay for in hight health ins. premiums.
I think all primaries are a waste of tax money if parties want to weed out candidates then the political parties should pay for them.
I fail to see the “advantage” of having candidates visit, anyway. Geographical stumping is irrelevant in this age of instanteous communications.
I lived on the ‘I-4 Corridor’ in Florida during the last campaign season, and got tired of the traffic hassles and campaign visits. Most people can’t get away to see them, and see the candidates on the evening news like everyone else in the country.
This system was DESIGNED by the post-watergate “reformers” — I am not making a comment for or against, but I offer the words of one of my favorite Democrats, PoliSci Prof. Mel Kahn, an old School, Chicago Machine Democrat:”The Masses are Asses!”
The political parties, prior to Watergate, were actually pretty good at weeding out candidates. Kahn has told me so himself. I am only 48, he is older and wiser on the issue.
Again, If the system were to change much, dont know what I would support as an alternative to what we have.
There are unintended consequences to everything we do.Every remedy has a side effect!
The post-watergate “reforms” we live under have helped empower the media, give more weight to “gotcha” scandle politics, give more power to the press, have driven the cost of campaigns sky-high and generally fatigue the general public.
What would be better?