Some Kansans are just realizing they won’t get a real say in the presidential nominating process, because the Legislature canceled the costly primary in favor of low-key party caucuses (see last letter). But as frustrating as it is to see Kansas sit out, it’s also a relief to escape the scheduling mayhem. Iowa Republicans have set their caucuses for Jan. 3, before the New Year’s Eve champagne will have had a chance to go flat. Iowa Democrats may vote separately on Jan. 5. All eyes now turn to New Hampshire, which by state law holds the nation’s first primary but has South Carolina, Michigan and Florida breathing down its neck. Meanwhile, so many other states have set Feb. 5 as their primary date that by Feb. 6 the suspense could be over. And — this is the worst part — Americans could face nine months of one-on-one campaigning for the general election.
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
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
17 Comments
Political party caucuses are anything but low key. They are a meeting of political party people including precinct committee men and women and/or their representatives who represent all corners of the state. These are the unpaid people who take politics seriously and voluntarily lick the stamps and pass out political literature during political seasons.
This is what is meant when they say in America, politics springs up from the grass roots … that is from the hundreds of precinct committee people who work quietly behind the scenes supporting our political system.
Actually, in many ways, I find this method preferable for the political parties to select their candidates. And its sure a lot less expensive.
The Democrats have pulled out of Michigan and Florida. They say it was punishment for violating their rules for having early primaries.
So much for democracy. Democrats aren’t about that.
If you want to shorten election cycles, politicians such as His Majesty Sir Todd (Lord Tiahrt?) would have to take meaningful action. Once the gold starts flowing from the merchant ships, however, The Royal Court tends to prefer the status quo.
Do away with these stupid primaries and return to the convention nomination method. Primaries give states who have them early too much power. The Dems know this. That is why they are demanding reason from their own in Florida and Michigan.
The DNC is trying to maintain party discipline for legitimate reasons. Campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire is a feasible endeavor for second-tier candidates–even Dennis Kucinich. This format gives them a chance to meet-and-greet voters, as well as chat with newspaper editors across the state(s).
When big-population states start horning in, and TV ads become the dominant method of “communication”, the viable candidates are quickly reduced to those who have huge campaign chests.
It’s not good for the Democratic Party to lose a Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd or Joe Biden early, just because they don’t have Hillary and Obama’s huge war chests. It’s better to give them some exposure, and then see if this gives them some traction. It could, for example, give one of them a strong shot at a VP nomination.
Joe Williams,
“So much for democracy. Democrats aren’t about that.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Coming from someone who’s shown such contempt for democratic process as you, Joe Williams, that gave me a good laugh this morning. Stolen Presidential elections in Florida, anyone?
Still, it is quite clear that the primary system is WAY broken, and that it is inherently skewed toward giving certain states a disproportionate and undeserved say over the national electoral process. One wonders whether it would be preferrable to return to brokered conventions, since this would to some extent get the media out of the loop as the “kingmakers” in every national election, and it would allow representatives from each state to horse trade as best they can, instead of taking so many states (like Kansas!) out of play.
Very good points MPS. Having personally participated in the New Hampshire primary I know that it gives an opportunity to a minimally funded grass-roots campaign to catch fire. That is why the corporate chamber of commerce types like Joe hate them so much.
Richardson is the only one out of the whole lot of Democrats that I’d even consider voting for. The rest have too much baggage or they are just too socialistic oriented.
What we need from both parties is a return to a government “Of the people, by the people and for the people,” not our current government of the contributors, by the contributors and for the contributors. The only way to do this is 1. Reduce the firestorm we subject candidates to so that competent people will run against the people whose only talent is a lust for power. 2. Stringently reduce the amount of money it costs to get elected. If candidates have to raise more than $100,000,000 to run a campaign, they WILL be beholden to their contributors at the expense of the people.These are difficult things to design and difficult to get passed, but our democracy is at stake here. We desperately need to take back our country!
The taxpayers foot the bill for the primaries and the conventions of the two major parties to select their candidates
I once read about elections in Cuba (yes, Cuba). It doesn’t cost a cent to run for office there. The candidates type out their platforms which are posted in the main plaza, and then they’re allowed two speeches, also in the plaza, and that’s the extent of a campaign. It requires citizen participation to an extent not seen here, where most voters reach their decision based on sound bites.
I’m not sure I’d be quite that restrictive, but something near to that would certainly cut down on our three year campaigns for four year terms. The way it is now, most of us are so sick of listening to candidates trying to one-up each other and lie outrageously for months and years at a time that when the election finally arrives we don’t want to vote for any of ‘em! That’s a piss poor way for an official to to start off serving his constituents.We have television stations that are licensed to provide public service. Why shouldn’t they be required to provide a set amount of air time to each candidate at no charge as a public service to the democratic society which they enjoy. political advertising would then be banned. Our nation’s airlines are also licensed to use the public air space, so why not require them to provide each candidate and a limited entourage with so many miles of campaign travel.A political campaign should be about the quality of ideas and not the amount of money it takes to swiftboat your opponent. Let’s make our political process independent of high dollar contributors who always demand a quid pro quo at public expense.
Elections in Cuba? Communist slates, nobody else allowed. Not much need for campaigning there. I’ll take democracy with all its flaws.
Rob,Those are elections of mostly local officials. Yes, it’s a communist state, we all know that. Yes, they have elections with multiple candidates. Yes, it makes the voters work harder, but is that such a bad thing?If Money is to be the arbiter of political success, we’ll just appoint Bill Gates president for life and be done with it. If we want a democracy where every citizen has an equal stake in our society, then we have to take money out of the picture. It can be done without millions of tax dollars, but candidates may have to learn to live without all the pollsters, consultants, focus groups and spin doctors, but we aren’t electing them to office. Without all that fluff between us and the candidate, we just might get a better view and avoid debacles like Bushllit!
Larry J. Sabato has a new book out entitled, “A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country.” I haven’t read it yet and I’m not sure if he calls for changes to the primary process, but I do know that he argues for a larger House of Representatives, perhaps as many as 1,000 members. I think I also saw where he wants a larger Supreme Court. As I said, I haven’t had time to read the book or to stop and think about the two proposals that I’m highlighting in this post. It’s possible, of course, to get lost at sea on an adventure like this, and it never seems to fail that proposed changes to the Constitution are partisan motivated. In any case, if I say tonight that I like the idea of expanding the House of Reps, I’ll undoubtedly wake up in the morning having thought of about 37 reasons why it’s a clunker, but I’ll put it out here anyway for the late night bloggers to see if anyone has a whiskey-induced vision of some sort.
As for the topic of this thread, it seems unlikely that the current generation of politicians will ever do anything meaningful about primary elections, campaign finance absurdity, lobbyists, or anything else. We are stuck with a gutless, self-serving bunch in Washington and until they retire and a new generation moves in, you can expect more of the same. Editorial writers will be making the same arguments in 2011. Watch.
TRT,If we get gridlock in a 435 member House, I can imagine what we’d get with a 1,000 members. It would give us smaller districts and a chance of actually being heard by our congressman, and it would make lobbying as it’s presently constituted more expensive.I can make a better case for an expanded Court, in that there might be fewer opportunities for a single President to pack it with his partisans.
Dr. Schooley (MPS) made an absolutely excellent point about the importance of having small primaries to level the playing field. The problem is with primaries being a marathon, it still comes down to money much of the time.
I would like to see a national open primary as a first round of elections. This would shorten the primary season and maybe, just maybe, force the candidates to stop the pandering to their bases. Right now, the primary system favors rank partisanship. It would be interesting to see candidates having to campaign with the entire electorate from the get go. I know this won’t happen, but that’s what I would like to see happen.
What I would REALLY like to see a constitutional amendment so that members of the House of Representatives serve four year terms, with elections opposite the presidential elections. This would hopefully reduce the short term thinking in the House, and hopefully also reduce while at the same time allow challengers more time to mount a challenge to a sitting House member.
Neglected to cut “hopefully also reduce” from my previous post.