quote: CONCORD, N.H. - New Hampshire might schedule its presidential primary in late 2007 if the Democratic Party moves ahead with plans to add a caucus to the early nominating calendar, the state's secretary of state said Tuesday.
Rather than have a fight as to who can schedule their primary first, why don't we have them all on the same day and then pick between the top vote getters at the convension?
Why do the early voting states have more of a say in our final choices than any other state?
This isn't an electoral college issue, this is more or less at random!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the parties don't want to? While there are laws governing the primaries to some extent, mostly they're decided by the parties, since they're internal party matters. Who are we to decide how freely associating groups of people organize themselves ?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
sounds to me like it's the secretary of state of NH that's deciding.
And even if it is the parties, my question still stands.
Why do the parties schedule the primaries like this instead of choosing at the convension? It doesn't make any sense.
Interesting, fugu, that I ask a question and you immidiately think I want some sort of federal law...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Pixiest, you've just made the 800,000th post in this side. Congratulations.
Other than that, I don't mind them having different days, really. It's just for the primaries. If it were say... the actual election, I'd be a bit peeved.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are you guys ripping on me for thinking something is done in a stupid way? I'd love to hear a real reason why they do this. Apart from Tradition.
Surely there's a well thought out and rational reason they spread the primaries out over months. It can't just be so they can campaign. It's always decided well before the end.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, its not at all clear the early voting states have any more a say in our choices than if there were once-off primaries. It doesn't matter if it was over a period of months or all at once that among some of the states a candidate gathered enough votes to guarantee a convention win. Now, there are arguments to be made that one or more of the candidates garner 'front-runner' advantage, but provided nobody is eliminated early who stood a chance of winning, its just a way of narrowing the field. Also, there've been enough surprise comebacks in primaries to suggest any advantage conferred by being the front-runner in early primaries is not any more significant than having been perceived as the front-runner before any primaries happen.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parties don't want them the same day. Then the candadates would have to campaign nationwide. As it stands, they can concentrate on a few states at a time and maybe actually show up and meet people. It would be cost prohibitive to have that many national campaigns. (one for each potential candadate) Unless, of course you would be willing to sign up for campaign finance reform. And there is no national party really willing to do that.
Of course, we could sign up for something really revolutionary, and have everyone vote for a slate of electors from each state. The electors would then meet later and elect most qualified person in the country to be the president. That would do away with the popularity contest that we presently have.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to being able to campaign (edit: with more focus), this lets the candidates be in the public spotlight more. There's also the competition among the different state organizers to be 'the first' or 'the decider' and such, like the motivation alluded to in the article.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Because it too logical to have all the primaries on the same day. And, as we all know, logic and politics do not exist in the same universe.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: This is just out of context, but...
The Pixiest, you've just made the 800,000th post in this side. Congratulations.
Not really, you know. (I'm pretty sure that since they used to periodically cull the oldest threads, the "total posts" number has fluctuated in the past, and so it's not an accurate representation of how many posts have been made on either side.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Of course, we could sign up for something really revolutionary, and have everyone vote for a slate of electors from each state. The electors would then meet later and elect most qualified person in the country to be the president.
I'm not familiar enough with American constitutional law to tell whether you're being sarcastic here. Is this what the Constitution actually says, by any chance? Because it does seem a bit odd to have an Electoral College if the members can only vote according to their instructions anyway. Why not chop out the middleman, in that case? You could give the bigger states more weight if you wanted to keep the current setup, or just go by the total popular vote for a semblance of rationality.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
