While Iowa and New Hampshire are swimming in presidential candidates and media attention, the resentment is rising among the rest of the states about this kooky presidential selection system. Fewer than 1 in 5 voters surveyed by Associated Press and Yahoo News favor letting Iowa and New Hampshire vote first; nearly 80 percent said other states should have first dibs. (Not surprisingly, those surveyed in Iowa and New Hampshire like the status quo just fine; two Granite Staters even had the nerve to suggest the two states need more power.) May 2008 be the election that broke the primary system’s back and led to reform.
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 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- BlueJay on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
29 Comments
In 2012, all state primaries should be held on the same day, period. If we hold primaries at different times, we should hold elections at different times.
We need shorter campaigns and primaries. Unless you tuned out the last 12+ months, you have been merciless assailed by these clowns on both sides of the river. Maybe Teddy Kennedy could offer all of them rides with him over a certain bridge?
May 2008 be the election that broke the primary system’s back and led to reform.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
I hope so Rhonda but the DNC and RNC have made it clear there is punishment for breaking the rules. The DNC was harsher, but it is expected they will relent during the convention. If they dont several states get screwed.
How about let the state with the highest percentage voter turnout choose first in the primaries the following Presidential election? It may help to encourage more people to vote.
I like Australias method of voter turnout. Works well for them.
Your method is almost as good but it still favors smaller population states. Cali could have a huge turnout but still lose to Iowa since Iowa needs less voters to turn out to achieve the same results.
A rotating primary was recommended but shot down. This would be more fair than the current method, and I think I will see pigs fly before I see this option implemented.
The current system is a bribe to the small states for their irrelevance in the EC.
Yeah, but if you had the Aussie system the conservatives would be whining about big government. Although perhaps a $10 fine would be a way to whip people into participating in their responsibility.
I am not sure if people had become worn out or just not paying attention, a reporter took photos of all the Presidential candidates to the streets of I think it was New York. No one could identify most of the Candidates. Mc Cain was Bush and so was Ron Paul, Thompson was “that guy who plays the D.A. on that crime show” but no one knew his name. When told that it was a picture of Mitt, most said it was not and they knew who he was. Of all of them the only two who everyone knew was, Hillary and Obama. And what about Giuliani? LOL they have to censer some of the identifications…But hey Brownback was popular everywhere… except here! Yes either every states primary should be the same day or one after the other get the damn thing over with. But Kansas first! GO HOME TEAM!
The state that should go first should be Illinois. Illinois is the most represenative of the population of the USA as a whole. Its racial and age make up reflect those of the USA. It is both a southern (bordering Kentucky) and northern state and it is also 1/3rd urban, suburban and rural/small town. A candidate that wins Illinois usually would be a good candidate for the country. And another thing that needs to be done is to get rid of this stupid “caucus” which means that large parts of the population do not get to vote because you have to be present at the caucus at 7PM tonight. That means if you have to work or you are in the military overseas- well sorry no vote for you. This is STUPID and a violation of your right to vote!
“”"In 2012, all state primaries should be held on the same day, period. If we hold primaries at different times, we should hold elections at different times.”"”
The problem with that is that it would favour big money candidates because they are the only one that could compete in such a system.
All states should be caucus states. They’re selecting delegates for the nomination convention of THEIR PARTY. Besides, they’re more fun.
A possible scenario:
Choose a handful of small ‘purple’ states to go first. The reason: less money needed to campaign and varied viewpoints get heard. A solidly red state (e.g. Kansas) or a solidly blue state (e.g. Massachusetts) don’t give a good test market.
Then, move on to moderate sized states as the field narrows a bit. Finally the mega states to finish it off.
I campaigned for Howard Dean in Iowa four years ago.
It was my feeling that the Iowa voters were just trying to shield themselves from the on-slaught of phone calls, mailings and visits.
A lot of hard-working Democrats said they didn’t have time to muck about at caucuses which sometime take up to TWO HOURS, usually on the coldest night of the year.
I’m in favor of any new system that doesn’t put Iowa first . . .
Sounds pretty fair Ben. We need to randomize the states that -go firts-
lol… first… Sometimes I go firts, but I should post that in the open thread.
I’d propose a 4-5 step primary/caucus system, starting with smaller states (I don’t particularly care if Iowa and NH go first), and progressively moving through the states, voting in blocks of 10-15 states at a time. Starting in the smaller states lets less-funded candidates get their message out and have an opportunity to be heard.
The first primary/caucus dates should be approximately March, with primaries/caucuses about every two weeks until they are finished by the end of June. That shortens the primary season, and hopefully lowers the costs of campaigning, again, letting less well funded candidates compete. It still makes the campaign long enough, however, to make candidates speak repeatedly, and see how they adjust to changing circumstances and challenges.
Of course, the primary/caucus system is a combination of state laws and party rules, so there will have to be some coordination between those two entities to do that. Good luck. In reality, (and unfortunately) I don’t see major changes coming.
Reform? In politics? No way.
The nomination process belongs to the political parties.
It is, actually, a good idea to have at least a few caucus states.
A caucus does force a candidate to explain issues, and not just attack the other side.
A caucus is also usefull in the “second choice” situations. A caucus can give you a compromise candidate in a way that a primary can not.
Also, we are a REPUBLIC, not a pure Democracy.
Presidents should understand our regional differences.
If we went to a national primary, on one, single day — the candidates would ignore the Midwest and concentrate on the coastal states.
Econ, may I suggest one slight modification? “—the candidates would ignore the Midwest and concentrate on the (populous) coastal states.” I just don’t see a big rush to Maine, e.g., during primary season.
Everyone has this completely backwards. If you are a small state with a late primary think of the power you would have if the nominating process is still undecided.
Paul – why do you think the candidates would ignore such populous states as Illinois, Ohio, etc during a primary?
The Primary/Caucus systems are ultimately mechanisms for the parties to choose their candidates. It should be the parties responsibility to decide how to do that.
If we had a National primary, (which wont happen every state party both dems and republicans would have to agree to a date). your pretty much guaranteed that the candidates with the most money wins and their going to concentrate on the states with the most people New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Nobody would go to Kansas, New Hampshire, or and other small state
States with less than 10 electoral votes are better off with caucuses. The best part about caucuses (at least on the Democratic side) is that it forces you to discuss issues with those who disagree with you between rounds. You have to look for common ground between candidates, whether your candidate meets the threshold or not.
Presidents should understand our regional differences.
If we went to a national primary, on one, single day — the candidates would ignore the Midwest and concentrate on the coastal states.
Posted by: Econ101
They do that already, whats your point? No disrespect intended.
—-
Econ, may I suggest one slight modification? “—the candidates would ignore the Midwest and concentrate on the (populous)
coastal states.” I just don’t see a big rush to Maine, e.g., during primary season.
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle
Maine isnt that populous.
—-
Everyone has this completely backwards. If you are a small state with a late primary think of the power you would have if the nominating process is still undecided.
Posted by: Door King
True, but how often has this happened?
—–
Paul – why do you think the candidates would ignore such populous states as Illinois, Ohio, etc during a primary?
Posted by: Ben
Im not econ, but my response is they dont do it much now, and I doubt they would in any other scenario presented, including econ’s. At least if all primaries were the same day, they would have to take risks they currently dont have to.
Most candidates focus on the early primaries because they know the more of those you win, the more donations you get and the more likely you will win the overall race. Lose enough early ones and you are not likely to win the nomination.
—
The Primary/Caucus systems are ultimately mechanisms for the parties to choose their candidates. It should be the parties responsibility to decide how to do that.
Posted by: Tom Paine
Tom,
I see your point, but the bigger picture is the issue. These races determine our national leader and this affects more than one party or the other, it affects every American.
I believe the parties should have some freedom in how they set up their primary/caucus, but they need to be required to do it in ways that make it accessible to the largest pool of voters possible.
States should have some say in it since an overall party policy may not work well in all states.
Exactly, D/R voters; that’s why I chose it.
If we had a National primary, (which wont happen every state party both dems and republicans would have to agree to a date). your pretty much guaranteed that the candidates with the most money wins and their going to concentrate on the states with the most people New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Nobody would go to Kansas, New Hampshire, or and other small state
Posted by: Tom Paine
I have seen this argument regularly, but how does that differ from the current system? I have seen similar arguments against abolishing the EC and while they sound good on the surface, most states frequently see races decided by less than 10% of the vote. In the last few elections, the 12 key states had the presidential candidate win by between 1 or 2% to about 10%.
There are any number of candidates who spent the most money and lost. In todays internet savvy world, a poorer candidate has a better chance than in the past. One of the most overlooked groups are one of the most internet savvy: the youth.
Ds have been better at utilizing the internet for the last few elections than Rs.
For the most part I agree with thinkfirst’s comment.
However, change does happen in politics, mostly as a result of the unexpected happening too much.
For example, the change to this excessive nomination season may or may not stay. If enough voters complain loudly enough, it will change. If enough voters dont complain, it is probably here to stay a while.
A candidate could hold off campaigning until closer to primary/caucus time in a state. This is a very big gamble that may pay off. The voters may be so turned off by the other candidates to vote for anyone else.
The pundits were commenting over a year ago about voter burnout during this election cycle and the latest polls show it is happening. How this will play out during primary/caucus races and the national election is not known.
As an alternate to Iowa and New Hampshire, Kev’s idea above of starting in Illinois could be workable. As he said, I suspect correctly, Illinois is 1/3 urban, 1/3 suburban and 1/3 rural.
I believe candidates need to begin in one state to try out their campaign speeches with minimal travel all over the nation.
Actually, I’m OK with Iowa and New Hampshire since they are the traditional locations.
Kansas would not be a good starter state with its generally sparse population away from Kansas City and Wichita.
Can you imagine Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton heading out to western Kansas.
Giuliani: “Hey there’s a tall white cylindrical skyscraper. Should be some big Republican contributors there.”
Edwards: “Hope it has a barber shop.”
Hillary: “Hey those woman all have cow s on their boots.”
In unison, driver: “Keep on going!”
I live in Iowa, and let me tell you, being first is a two edged sword.
While the chance to see and learn about candidates is incredible (there’s no excuse for now being informed), the onslaught of ads and phone calls is truly mind boggling. It’s telemarketers on steroids.
Romney started running ads on TV last March. I saw a stat yesterday that said he had run 8000 ads since then, and spent $17 mil of his own money. Even if you absolutely love the guy, it’s almost enough to make you enter rehab.
One nice thing about the caucus and the way delegates are assigned is that it forces candidates to pay attention to the rural counties. They can’t just work the cities and expect to win.
So if you think running a primary in Illinois is going to get you a representative sample, think again. The candidates will spend most of their time in Chicago and would have little incentive to pay attention to the rest of the state.
That said, I would have to agree that the current system is crazy. Sort of reminds me of the Churchill quote about democracy — he said it’s the worst form of government, except for the rest.
Former is correct. According to ABC News, half of the media coverage for the nomination process is spent covering iowa and new hampshire. The good news is the boom to the economies of iowa and new hampshire.
Illinois a southern state? Someone needs a geography lesson. Illinois is too far north to be considered a southern state, kentuck can go both ways. Some consider it southern when they want to insult the kentucks and others call it northern when they want to insult the kentucks.
I am glad I dont live in iowa or new hampshire. I may move to a swing state before the election so my vote can help swing the vote to Obama, Hillary, or Edwards since my vote wont matter here. If enough fellow kansans did the same our votes would count and make a difference.