Appeals to fairness and common sense have failed to convince the major political parties of the need to junk the wrecked presidential primary system, which is why Florida and Michigan have turned rebellious. Maybe the NBA has the answer, writes Charles Euchner in the Boston Globe. “Using an NBA-style lottery to rotate states would not only provide a balanced sequence of states by population, but also regional location, economic diversity, ethnic diversity, urban/suburban/rural balance, and so on.”
In today’s Opinion pages, columnist Davis Merritt argues that the “Democrats’ unseemly and unending jockeying for early presidential primary dates” could cost them in next year’s elections.
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
12 Comments
Why not just have all of the primaries on the same day? Giving a bunch of northeastern yankees that much influence just doesn’t seem right.
Having worked with nor’easters in a previous endeavor, giving them any influence doesn’t seem right:-)
“”"”Why not just have all of the primaries on the same day? Giving a bunch of northeastern yankees that much influence just doesn’t seem right.”"”
It is felt that it would be unfair to candidates that do not have the money to compete nationwide. Having 1 or 2 states go first allows a candidate with little money to compete. My main argument is why it has to be Iowa and NH.
The first state should be Illinois.If we are going to keep the current state by state primary system it should be reformed badly. Iowa and New Hampshire should not have the influence they do in selecting Presidents. They simply do not have the population or reflect the rest of the country enough to do that. What should be done is to move the first primary to a state such as Illinois that has a demographic base the reflects that of the country as a whole. It is 1/3rd urban, 1/3 suburban and 1/3 rural. It is well balanced politically- while a blue state recently, Illinois has often went red too. Its racial makeup reflects that of the country and it is the only state that is both northern and southern.
An NBA-style lottery? Why not, it makes as much sense as anything else.
The problem, of course, is that the primary system is a series of PARTY elections, not a public election, and is therefore focused on party/state advantage and interest, not on national/general electorate interest. And the political parties don’t have the internal discipline to whip their respective state entities into line (witness Florida and Michigan’s fights with the DNC)to serve any sort of national interest.
Ideally: have a series of primaries, beginning about March, ending by late June. Each about 2 weeks apart, beginning with smaller states, (so candidates with lesser funds can test their appeal early without being blown out in large states where they don’t have the dollars to compete) and arranged on a roughly regional basis (again, to keep travel costs down so those without big budgets can compete).
To do this type of scheduling, or any other, will require federal legislation (which practically guarantees they will screw it up). The federal law, if it comes, will be driven not by “public good,” but by each party (and even factions within each party) attempting to gain some political advantage from the schedule.
It has always been so.
And so it goes. Our republic works despite us, not because of us.
How about having an election, one election, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November of every even numbered year.
The candidate receiving the most votes wins.
End of story. No primary. No electoral college. Just Democracy.
(Oh yeah, and candidate names listed without party affiliation.)
“brian” –
Your proposal has merit.
But think about the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Although there is absolutely nothing vaguely resembling political parties in the Constitution, the rules of both houses of Congress would have to be wiped clean. Maybe not a bad idea, really, but the chaos in the process of establishing a multi-faction Senate and House would be bloody.
As we all know from so-called non-partisan elections for city counsels and school boards, there always seems to be an Us vs. Them division that emerges.
There may be something in the American psyche that demands a “y’r either fer us or again’ us” mentality. But we’ve gotten to the point that if Al Gore came out in favor of cute fuzzy kittens, the Limbaugh-tomized Masses would break out the Foamy and razors and advocate shaved pussies… and never understand the ramifications.
Over on today’s Open Thread I just posted a proposal that participants in this forum try to confine their missives to issues rather than individuals, to thoughts rather than personalities.
It would mean talking about healthcare rather than Hillary’s laugh; about tax policy rather than Ann Coulter’s Adam’s Apple; about corporate fat cats instead of Michael Moore’s girth. In fact, it might make both Coulter and Moore noentities because the personalities would no longer be in play in discussing the issues we as American desperately need to address if this republic is gonna survive.
There’s a reason why the Constitution of the United States of America turned out pretty good. For one thing, James Madison didn’t snipe against Ben Franklin’s bald head and Franklin did’t accuse John Adams of wearing a tacky flea-riddled powdered wig.
We who discuss politics and issues on the Internet have been given an incredible tool with which we might promote democracy. I’m reminded of the encounter Ben Franklin had after the Continental Congress had hammered out the Constitution:
A woman asked Franklin, “What have you come up with? A democracy or a monarchy?”
Franklin answered, “A republic… if you can keep it.”
He didn’t take the opportunity to call Alexander Hamilton a “Bastard puppy-raping hedonist.” That’s just one reason Ben Franklin never showed up on “Hannity and Colmes.”
MonkeyHawk,You have some very good points.
I agree that the changes that would happen in Congress would be messy, but I do not think at the end of the first term there would be less legislative process than there is currently.
You are indeed correct that people, I do not know if it applies only to Americans, need to have an Us vs Them. Life is so much easier when we try to compartmentalize it into right and wrong, this way or that way, etc. I think it is human nature to categorize like that.
Our current two party system perpetuates this Us vs Them mentality and facilitates acceptance or rejection of ideas based on the affiliation of the person advocating the idea. That is unfortunate. There are good ideas from both Republicans and Democrats that would lead to positive changes in our country if we could get past the labeling.
I think elimination of party references on election ballots is the first step to do that.
Actually, MonkeyHawk, politics in the “good old days” was every bit as nasty as now, if not more. Personal attacks were just as common; remember, Burr shot Hamilton in a duel at least in part over political differences. Our Founders, though brilliant, were not the angels we sometimes imagine.
The idea that our politics is more divisive or nastier than ever before is largely myth.
They didn’t have the 24 hour news channels broadcasting to the masses, however.
What isn’t myth is that, for a number of reasons (including those 24 news channels), the politics never stops. Campaigns have become endless, and leaders never transition from “politicing” to “governing.” The Clinton White House operated that way; so has, in large part, the GWB WH. Frankly, every president since Kennedy dealt with and used, and been used by, the media, but with the rise of the 24 hour news channels, and the end of dominance of the Democratic party nationally, it’s gotten worse.
Because the electorate is so closely divided and even very small vote gains can have large electoral consequences, every election is seen as a seminal one with ‘everything’ at stake, so nearly every issue is played for political advantage. “Governing” gets lost in looking forward to the next election. The news channels focus, often, on the trivial and sensational (sometimes to the exclusion of substance), because they are driven by ratings and profits, and have to fill up all that time. C-SPAN, thought to give voters an insight into Congress, became just another avenue to play to the public, with each side using the channel for partisan advantage.
I’m not sure how we get off this roller-coaster. Given human nature, I’m not sure we can.
GMC,
You are right that it is nothing new and that it is not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing.
Imagine how much we could accomplish as a nation with out party politics and the political gaming that must occur to get legislation passed in Washington.
A lottery for primary dates might be good. A time limit on campaigning might also improve the election process by getting the election over with before the partisan sniping has us all sick of democracy. Strict campaign spending limits might also mean we wouldn’t have to endure all the slick weasel focus groups and commercials used to deprive us of our powers of reason. There’s lots of room for improvement.