|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: How to fix the primaries? |
 |
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
And let's not be unclear: New hampshire and Iowa voting first in every primary is absolutely, horseshoes to hand grenades, an example of bias in the United States of America.
Quite frankly, I hate it, and all the quaint little anecdotes about how feistily centrist Iowans and New Hampshirites are. |
Ha, ha. I lived in NH so I'm glad its the first primary. But your point is taken. Why should NH be first every year?
Inertia.
Okay, okay. But the only other way you can do it is by lottery. That'd be one intense lottery. Because the other way, politicking, would probably only make the system worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Having the same states kick off the primary season is useful. It provides us with a frame of reference to compare candidates and results from current campaigns to past campaigns. It also means that the rules should be more consistent, established and known. This will make it easier for candidates to get on the ballot and run.
There are states where it is nearly impossible for candidates to get on ballots, including primary ballots. These states would not be suitable for kickoff primary states. (They should be encouraged to change their rules as well - a different topic.)
Large states would choose too many delegates too soon and cause the campaign to be effectively over at an early stage when we should be listening and learning. I would arbitrarily choose 8 electoral votes as the maximum size for any state going early - in first two months.
Rotation is a problem because other elections are held along with presidential primaries in many states. Those states might be willing to shake up their electoral schedules ONCE in order to establish a permanently improved primary system, but would not want to be part of any rotation.
Likewise, candidates and voters benefit from knowing what's coming and what the rules are. Every state has its own system and rules. There are NO national elections in the US. Sometimes tradition has benefits and in this case, the benefit of having fair rules for candidates, established traditions of campaigning, and past experience for comparison and analysis outweigh the "chamber of commerce" interest in having one's home state come first.
I think my second proposed system is best. It has 8 small, early states. These allow candidates to campaign in small (population and geographic) areas at lower cost where the first 200 or so candidates can have a fair shot.
This is followed by 4 regional groupings. There are quite a few states in each region, but the distribution and number of electoral votes is fairly tight. There would be a two week campaign period for each region. This is where the surviving major candidates would have to show some organizational and fundraising ability after the one on one campaigning in the first 8 contests.
Finally, the blowout where the big states would vote and choose the nominees. This is good for the voters as well. Since it is unlikely any candidate would lock up the nomination before the final super Tuesday, this primary day would have a field of several surviving candidates so that every voter would have a say. As things stand now, many states have little actual impact on the primary process since most or all of the serious contenders have dropped out and/or one candidate has already racked up enough delegates prior to the final primaries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
What states should come first ........ and why ...... :
1. New Hampshire - small state (pop & geo), easy for hundreds of primary candidates for pres. to get on the ballot. The people and govt have a tradition of welcoming hundreds of candidates. Tradition. Experience. Represents the northeastern US well.
2. Iowa - ditto Represents the midwest of US very well.
3. South Carolina - small state represent SE region of US
4 Oregon - the only small state that can represent the West Coast region
5 West Virginia - small state that represents the surrounding region well and different demographics than the first 4
6 Nevada - small state to represent the far west, but not the west coast
7 Mississippi - small state to represent the deep south region
8 Hawaii (etc) - small state included for its demographics and the unifying effects of having the whole nation participate in a meaningful way.
The voting order of the four regions that follow in April and May could be rearranged.
The more I think about this, the more I like it.
8 single state preliminaries.
4 regional contests
1 final super tuesday
(My first proposal had two final super rounds. I liked that as well, but it would end too late into June. This whole thing needs to be over by the "first Tuesday following the first Monday in June." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
The squeaky wheel I refered to was not the whole state of Oregon. Very Happy |
I don't think it's fair to single out Milwaukiedave on a thread he hasn't even participated in. 
The closest I've ever been to Oregon was SeaTac airport. 
So please don't punish states I've never been to because of me.
| Quote: |
| You keep complaining that Iowa gets to go first and that it isn't fair. Have you demonstrated that Iowa going first is harmful? No, you haven't. Yes, Iowa is in a privileged position, but it hasn't harmed anyone. |
Well, let's say Iowa didn't just get to go first in the primary but that Iowa alone elected the President.
Would I actually be able to prove that Iowa choosing the president by itself is harmful? No, I don't think so. I could, however, argue that it disenfranchises the rest of the population that doesn't get such a special privilege. I find that especially relevant in a country that likes to talk about democracy, equality, and justice for all.
| Quote: |
| Why should it give up this position? Maybe you should just rent a post office box and change your legal residence to New Hampshire so you can take part in their primary. (Iowa has a caucus which you have to attend personally.) |
I'm not trying to curry favor for myself. I'm arguing about principle. My state is hardcore Republican. See my posts about the electoral college; I'm one of the privileged ones who got to see my vote cast for Bob Dole. Woohoo! Of course, the primaries are bipartisan. It would mean seeing Democrats from different places get to express their preference early on before the competition is whittled down to a couple of candidates.
| Quote: |
| I'd like to suggest a revision of the regional plan proposed earlier. Given that regions are not as important as in the past and urban/rural be given more thought. Perhaps two small states and two larger, urban states going first would be a better plan. |
I think you could have a regional plan set up wherein you'd have a mixture of rural and urban.
It is minor, but not blowing money flying back and forth between far-flung places would be nice. Reducing travel time would allow candidates more time on the ground actually campaigning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Okay, okay. But the only other way you can do it is by lottery. That'd be one intense lottery. Because the other way, politicking, would probably only make the system worse. |
You wouldn't have to have a lottery every election. Just one to start the rotation. The rotation would then go on from there:
(assuming 10 regional voting blocs a-j who hold their primaries close to each other on the calendar)
2012
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
2016
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
a
2020
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
a
b
Like that, if you get my drift.
In fact, as a gesture to recognize the tradition of Iowa and New Hampshire, I'd be fine with making their groups a and b for the initial 2012 debut of such a system. Perhaps even an attempt to base the initial order on some semblance of how the primary order goes now to avoid a lottery.
Of course, that would mean the first is going to go last next time around.
But no worries. The wheel turns, you find yourself back in first eventually.
Still, I think this would make any lottery less intense since winning alse means being last next time around. 2012 would also be a slow primary year to work out the kinks in a new system since you'll very likely have one party fielding an incumbent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Having the same states kick off the primary season is useful. It provides us with a frame of reference to compare candidates and results from current campaigns to past campaigns. It also means that the rules should be more consistent, established and known. This will make it easier for candidates to get on the ballot and run. |
Having two rural states, one of which has never managed to put a woman in Congress, also gives rise to concern.
| Quote: |
| There are states where it is nearly impossible for candidates to get on ballots, including primary ballots. These states would not be suitable for kickoff primary states. (They should be encouraged to change their rules as well - a different topic.) |
That's a good point, and something I don't know much about. What states are the difficult ones? Can you give us some specifics about the difficulties?
Here's also the wiki info on proposals:
Note: I don't support the regional rotation here because it proposes only 4 regions.
| Quote: |
Reform proposals
There are several proposals for reforming the primary system. Some have called for a single nationwide primary to be held on one day. Others point out that requiring candidates to campaign in every state simultaneously would exacerbate the purported problem of campaigns being dominated by the candidates who raise the most money. The following proposals attempt to return the primary system to a more relaxed schedule, and would help less-funded candidates by lowering the cost of entry.
[edit] Graduated random Presidential primary system (American Plan)
One reform concept is the graduated random Presidential primary system, variations of which have been referred to as the American Plan or the California Plan. This plan starts with small primaries, and gradually moves up to larger ones, in 10 steps, with states chosen at random. The idea is that fewer initial primaries, typically in smaller states, would allow grassroots campaigns to score early successes and pick up steam. However, since states are chosen at random, travel costs may still be significant.
[edit] Delaware Plan
A commission empaneled by the Republican National Committee recommended the Delaware Plan in 2000. This plan had states grouped by size into four groups, with the smallest primaries first, then the next-smallest, and so on. Populous states objected to the plan, however, because it would have always scheduled their primaries at the end of the season. Other criticisms included the wide geographic range of the states, necessitating high travel costs. The Delaware Plan was put to vote at Republican National Convention of 2000 and rejected.
[edit] Rotating regional primary system
The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed a rotating regional primary system, with the country split into four regions: the West, the Midwest, the South, and the Northeast.[17] Unlike the Delaware Plan and the American Plan, the Rotating Regional Primary System would lower campaigning costs by restricting groups of primaries to single, contiguous regions. Criticisms of the regional plan include the higher entry costs than the other plans (since 1/4 of the country would vote in the first regional), and the political bias of certain regions (the South or the Northeast) unduly influencing the selection of a nominee.
[edit] Interregional primary plan
In the interregional primary plan the country is divided into geographical regions. On each primary date from March to June, one state from each of six regions votes. Each election date would contain a wide variety of perspectives. The order of the states in each region is set by a lottery. In a 24-year cycle, every state would have a chance to be among the first primary states. The primary criticism of this plan is that travel costs would be quite high: in each round, candidates would essentially have to cover the entire country in order to effectively campaign. Contrary to most reform plans, this would reduce the ability of lesser-funded candidates to build up from small contests to large ones.[18]
[edit] National primary
A national primary has been proposed, a single day on which all state primaries and caucuses would be held, with over 120 bills offered in Congress. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I could, however, argue that it disenfranchises the rest of the population that doesn't get such a special privilege. I find that especially relevant in a country that likes to talk about democracy, equality, and justice for all.
|
I don't see how you can argue Iowa going first disenfranchises anyone. The other states get their turn and many don't follow Iowa's lead in lock-step. Obama won in Iowa and lost in New Hampshire the next week.
I will still argue for several small states going first, separately. It allows candidates to build name-recognition, enter even if they don't have much money, build an organization, hone their message. Another advantage of very small states is giving regular people a chance to meet and judge the candidates face-to-face. Once they get to the big states, that can't happen. Political heavyweights live rather isolated/insulated lives and it's good for a few weeks for them to have to sit down in cafes and talk to regular people about their lives and the various issues that affect them.
| Quote: |
| My state is hardcore Republican. See my posts about the electoral college; I'm one of the privileged ones who got to see my vote cast for Bob Dole. |
I've never really understood your point about this. In the Elections of '68, '72, '80, '84, '88, '00 and '04 (my adult lifetime) a Republican was elected against my wishes. Should I have just stayed home and not voted? The sad reality is that in recent elections, the Republicans have mustered winning majorities--and thank you sooooo much, Richard Nixon for showing them how to do it.
| Quote: |
Well, let's say Iowa didn't just get to go first in the primary but that Iowa alone elected the President.
|
This is a non-starter. The caucuses are party members-only affairs and so winners reflect only that portion of the population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
My state is hardcore Republican. See my posts about the electoral college; I'm one of the privileged ones who got to see my vote cast for Bob Dole.
I've never really understood your point about this. In the Elections of '68, '72, '80, '84, '88, '00 and '04 (my adult lifetime) a Republican was elected against my wishes. Should I have just stayed home and not voted? The sad reality is that in recent elections, the Republicans have mustered winning majorities--and thank you sooooo much, Richard Nixon for showing them how to do it. |
Let's save this bit for the electoral college discussion. I only brought it up so that you would stop trying to discriminate against Oregon.
| Quote: |
I will still argue for several small states going first, separately. It allows candidates to build name-recognition, enter even if they don't have much money, build an organization, hone their message. Another advantage of very small states is giving regular people a chance to meet and judge the candidates face-to-face. Once they get to the big states, that can't happen. Political heavyweights live rather isolated/insulated lives and it's good for a few weeks for them to have to sit down in cafes and talk to regular people about their lives and the various issues that affect them.
|
Dude...this is the part where I usually end up saying something flippant and rude. I torpedo a discussion I really do want to have, and then i have to wait and start a fresh thread later. I'M NOT going to do that this time. Gimme a sec while I count backwards from 10 and go hit my head against a wall.
...
OK. I'm back. Yata, there are regular people in states with large populations. There are also cafes there. The whole regular people in cafes argument is sentimental bunk. Iowa is also home to huge industrial farms that profit from that pork-barrel farm subsidization, no? When candidates campaign in New York, they don't just camp out in Manhattan. You can bet your bottom they also go upstate, where the "real people" live. There are cafes in upstate New York.
Moreover, I don't see how they suddenly stop making rural stops after Iowa and New Hampshire. If indeed they do, then you have another reason why they should visit the cafes of the other real people who live in places like Montana and the Dakotas.
Additionally, a quick count shows that there are 19 states that get fewer electoral votes than Iowa. What does this tell us? It suggests Iowa isn't a "small state". It's really pretty middling. By setting the premise of meeting the real people in the small states, you're actually indicating that there are "realer" people than Iowans. You want the small states first? OK, but understand you're not really a small state.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I could, however, argue that it disenfranchises the rest of the population that doesn't get such a special privilege. I find that especially relevant in a country that likes to talk about democracy, equality, and justice for all.
I don't see how you can argue Iowa going first disenfranchises anyone. The other states get their turn and many don't follow Iowa's lead in lock-step. Obama won in Iowa and lost in New Hampshire the next week. |
Right. So suppose the states are people eating at a cafe. Nah, let's say diner. That's a bit more of the ol' Americana. So, the people are gonna vote about what to have for dinner. Iowa gets to lead off with New Hampshire. Every time. Every time when it's Montana's turn to vote for what to have for dinner, Montana gets to vote for either a) meatloaf or b) meatloaf. This is what I mean by disenfranchisement.
I'll admit that I've unfairly picked on Iowa and New Hampshire. I'm not saying it's all their fault. The privilege extends to more states than just Iowa and new Hampshire.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Well, let's say Iowa didn't just get to go first in the primary but that Iowa alone elected the President.
This is a non-starter. The caucuses are party members-only affairs and so winners reflect only that portion of the population. |
I like how you split this off from the other bit it was connected to. You were asking me to prove that it's harmful that Iowa goes first. I said that I can't. I can't even if Iowa were to alone choose the president in the general election. I thought it was obvious that we were talking about the general election and not the caucus system. In any case, by direct vote or some integrated caucus, I would be unable to prove that Iowa solely choosing the president was harmful. So, if you want to talk about non-starters, your whole "Prove Iowa going first is harmful" is a non-starter.
OK. Patience is a virtue. I believe I have to the best of my ability, without being deliberately provocative or an insufferable ass, fielded all the questions you have asked me.
In other words, there is really no excuse for you not to answer this question I have posed at least 3 times:
| Quote: |
| Let's be quite specific here. Yata, what about if the only change made was to swap the primary positions of Iowa and Oregon. Would you be OK with that? Would you see nothing broken if your state was last in the primary order every election forever? |
Please do not ignore this question again, and please do not start dissecting the above before you have answered this question.
I don't think mine is an unreasonable demand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:01 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Here are two changes Menendez would make:
Don't award delegates based on candidates' winning percentages. The top vote-getter in each state should claim all the delegates. Republicans used a winner-take-all system and settled quickly on their nominee.
Reform the caucus system. Most states hold primary elections, but some hold caucus meetings to help choose the nominee. Some consider caucuses undemocratic because fewer party members can participate than in primaries. Caucus-goers must be able to attend a potentially long meeting held at a potentially inconvenient time in a room with limited capacity. |
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/109/story/183933.html
I can agree with half of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In other words, there is really no excuse for you not to answer this question I have posed at least 3 times:
|
Was there a specific question you wanted answered? I must have missed it. What was it again?
| Quote: |
| there are regular people in states with large populations |
This is debatable in some circles, but I'm fairly worldly, so I will agree with it. The trouble is, and my point was, that there are too many of them in a big state. Small states are small because there are few people (regular or not) and therefore small groups gather to meet the candidates. I do believe this is a good thing. I think a candidate has to interact in a way when there are 5-15 people gathered in Mr. & Mrs. Schoening's living room in Batavia that is qualitatively different than meeting 200 or 2,000 people in Manhattan or Queens.
Yes, there are small towns in New York, but New York has a lot of delegates at stake. Iowa does not. A candidate can practice in Iowa and then, if he has done well, move on to the big show where it really does matter. Think about Broadway shows and how they practice out of town first before going to the big time.
Yes, in reality Iowa is a middling size state, but at under 3 million, middling is small. Could other small states perform the function as well as Iowa does? Some of them could. The trouble is, their legislatures did not wise up soon enough to pass a law that says they get to be first. Why should Iowa be punished just because other states were slow on the draw?
I think we have to be frank and un-PC here. There are some small states that could not do as good a job as Iowa. Remember that Iowa is always one of the 2 or 3 states at the top in general education stats. Imagine if say, Mississippi were to go first. Mississippi has many fine qualities, but public education is not one of them.
A detail you may not be aware of...The caucus in January is just the first round. It is followed by a county caucus, a district caucus and finally the state convention. It's a very time-consuming process, very unlike a primary that is over in one day. Iowa needs a lot of time to select the delegates to the National Convention. It needs to go early so it has the time to carry out the process.
BTW, I do appreciate your emotional restraint. Because I wouldn't want to be responsible for making your head explode, I should answer your oft-asked question. 
I don't remember exactly when Iowa leap-frogged to the front of the pack. I know it was there by '76, but I don't think it was in '68. As far as I recall, in '64 (when I first really started paying attention) I didn't have any feelings against whatever states were first. I can't remember feeling jealous or cheated or anything like that.
In '68 I was a college student in Colorado but I spent my weekends in May in Nebraska and South Dakota campaigning for McCarthy. That was pretty late in the process but I felt those states got a fair share of attention. I remember being really excited when I got to shake McCarthy's hand...but I can't remember where it happened. Ogallala? Anyway, it was a cool experience.
When I was teaching high school social studies in Iowa ('74-'94) it was fun to get calls and get a lot of attention from campaign operatives for months. I'll admit I liked to play games with them, claiming I was undecided long after I had picked my guy.
Campaign finance is a much more serious problem, in my opinion, than the order of states in the primary/caucus system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Let's be quite specific here. Yata, what about if the only change made was to swap the primary positions of Iowa and Oregon. Would you be OK with that? Would you see nothing broken if your state was last in the primary order every election forever? |
| Quote: |
| This is debatable in some circles, but I'm fairly worldly, so I will agree with it. |
2 college friends I had came from two different HS graduating classes of 15 in Upstate New York. Share that with them circles you speak of.
| Quote: |
| The trouble is, and my point was, that there are too many of them in a big state. Small states are small because there are few people (regular or not) and therefore small groups gather to meet the candidates. I do believe this is a good thing. I think a candidate has to interact in a way when there are 5-15 people gathered in Mr. & Mrs. Schoening's living room in Batavia that is qualitatively different than meeting 200 or 2,000 people in Manhattan or Queens. |
I've already pointed out that the candidates don't just camp out in Manhattan. If you want to continue to suggest that's what they do, then I could simply counter by saying that the candidates set up shop in Des Moines.
Interestingly enough, fortune once led me to spending a day in Batavia...New York. It looked a lot like...Iowa. Perfect place for one of those splendid cafe candidate soundbites talking with that ever special species, the real people.
| Quote: |
| Yes, there are small towns in New York, but New York has a lot of delegates at stake. Iowa does not. |
Yay! A new argument? Are we finished with the real people, cafe stuff?
| Quote: |
| A candidate can practice in Iowa and then, if he has done well, move on to the big show where it really does matter. Think about Broadway shows and how they practice out of town first before going to the big time. |
Unfortunately, the "practice" theory doesn't really hold up. i don't have a source right here, but somewhere I read that half the money spent in 2004 was spent in Iowa and New Hampshire. The bottom line is that many a candidate never recovers from a drubbing in these states. In other words, they are absolutely part of the "big show". Now, conversely, your argument start to work against you. It's not good having the field cut because some candidates don't perform well in two really homogenous states. Rather, if the first states are part of the big show, then let the candidates take aim at larger states with more diverse interests.
| Quote: |
| Yes, in reality Iowa is a middling size state, but at under 3 million, middling is small. Could other small states perform the function as well as Iowa does? Some of them could. The trouble is, their legislatures did not wise up soon enough to pass a law that says they get to be first. Why should Iowa be punished just because other states were slow on the draw? |
That's just silly. What's to stop any given state passing a new law that says they have to go first? And, we still haven't cleared up the constitutionality of making laws about political party primaries. Seems a bit dubious. Nevertheless, you're talking about a state law. I like that you used the word "punished". Why exactly should other states be punished because of an Iowa state law?
I don't consider my solution punishment (maybe I've portrayed it that way a bit here and there, but that's because of a certain squeaky wheel  ). Rather, call it sharing.
| Quote: |
| I think we have to be frank and un-PC here. There are some small states that could not do as good a job as Iowa. Remember that Iowa is always one of the 2 or 3 states at the top in general education stats. Imagine if say, Mississippi were to go first. Mississippi has many fine qualities, but public education is not one of them. |
Good lord, this is getting richer as we go. One minute, we're going to Iowa for the "real" people. The next, we're headed there because they're so well-educated? But fine, we've come this far, eh? Let's have a look:
One of the top 2 or 3?
http://www.statestats.com/edrank.htm
Iowa's at nine. New Hampshire's at 12. Any small (real) states above them? Yup. 1. Vermont 3. Connecticut 4. New Jersey 5. Maine 7. Montana 11. Nebraska
Doh!
| Quote: |
| A detail you may not be aware of...The caucus in January is just the first round. It is followed by a county caucus, a district caucus and finally the state convention. It's a very time-consuming process, very unlike a primary that is over in one day. Iowa needs a lot of time to select the delegates to the National Convention. It needs to go early so it has the time to carry out the process. |
Yeah, having a convoluted system doesn't make for a great argument either. If we're supposed to let states go first because their system is cumbersome, then again what's to stop other states from intentionally making their own systems more cumbersome so that they get this kind of privilege.
From now on, delegates will have to travel by foot to the state capital to cast their votes...
Bad argument.
| Quote: |
| BTW, I do appreciate your emotional restraint. Because I wouldn't want to be responsible for making your head explode, I should answer your oft-asked question. Confused |
Thank you. I'll try to keep my head from exploding. You try to keep your heart from breaking.
| Quote: |
| Campaign finance is a much more serious problem, in my opinion, than the order of states in the primary/caucus system. |
I can agree with that, but that's another issue. there's also the electoral college and the frozen house. The issue of primaries, however, has finally been laid upon the national table. Whether you or I like the outcome, change is coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That's just silly. What's to stop any given state passing a new law that says they have to go first? |
This is because you fail to understand the brilliance of the Iowa Legislature. Our law says we will leapfrog any state that gets in front of us. I'm fairly certain that's how we ended up starting on Jan. 3 this year. Jealous states thought they could out fox us. They failed.
| Quote: |
| Whether you or I like the outcome, change is coming. |
I'm skeptical. There's some tweaking done each time, but nothing really substantial has happened in a quarter of a century. As I said before, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It appears that Iowa is slipping in educational excellence since I left. Could that be coincidence? When I was there, we were always at the top with Wisconsin and Minnesota. Maybe it was only in science and math? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
That's just silly. What's to stop any given state passing a new law that says they have to go first?
This is because you fail to understand the brilliance of the Iowa Legislature. Our law says we will leapfrog any state that gets in front of us. I'm fairly certain that's how we ended up starting on Jan. 3 this year. Jealous states thought they could out fox us. They failed. |
Yer, that's brilliant. What's to stop any other state from passing an oh-so-clever law that says they leapfrog any other state?
What happens then?
They all start leapfrogging each other until their next primary has to be set in the past, the primaries get set further and further back in time until they hit 1776, at which point the space-time continuum is torn asunder and it starts raining frogs. Like I said, it's silly.
| Quote: |
| I'm skeptical. There's some tweaking done each time, but nothing really substantial has happened in a quarter of a century. As I said before, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. |
And we're back to the start of the thread. Hurray! Was it broke a quarter of a century ago?
From what I've read, it's supposed to be addressed at the national conventions. We'll see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe "they" do read Dave's:
GOP to Consider Major Changes in Primary Calendar
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 22, 2008; Page A05
| Quote: |
Republicans are set to consider a complete rewrite of their political calendar for the 2012 presidential primaries as they gather in Minnesota to officially nominate Sen. John McCain after a tumultuous primary season.
If approved by the delegates to the Republican convention, the new GOP calendar will pack many state primaries into elections on three successive Tuesdays late in the political calendar. The groupings of primaries would rotate every four years so every state would have a chance to go early in the process.
Exceptions would be made for a few states -- including Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and some small states that often get overlooked in the process. But under the proposed GOP rules, most would be locked into specific dates, a change from the freewheeling 2008 calendar, in which many states raced to the front of the pack, pushing voting earlier than ever before.
"In effect we had a national primary this year," said Robert T. Bennett, the chairman of the Ohio Republican Party and a chief backer of the changes. "If we don't make a change, you will have a total of between 36 to 38 states that will be voting the first Tuesday in February in 2012. By spreading out the primary process into some orderly process benefits the system."
Bennett said the proposal emphasizes the importance of small states where politicians can engage in hand-to-hand politicking that doesn't involve costly ads. "Those are the states that you can get retail politics in," he said. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103088.html
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 21, 2008; Page A03
| Quote: |
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign will call next week for the creation of a commission to revise the rules for selecting a presidential nominee in 2012, with a goal of reducing the power of superdelegates, whose role became a major point of contention during the long battle for the Democratic nomination between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The commission also will be urged to redraw the nominating calendar for 2012 to avoid starting the primaries and caucuses so early, and also to look specifically at ensuring more uniform rules and standards for those caucuses. |
| Quote: |
The commission will be encouraged to consider either reducing the number of superdelegates eligible to attend the national conventions or increasing the number of pledged delegates -- those elected on the basis of caucus and primary results.
The other significant change is the call to redraw the primary and caucus calendar. The 2008 calendar received significant criticism both for the early starting dates for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and also because so many states were crowded into the first month of what turned out to be a five-month battle.
Under the system envisioned by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, most contests could not be held before March, except for those in a handful of states authorized to go earlier -- presumably in February rather than January.
Plouffe also said the commission will be urged to look for ways to avoid the bunching of states on particular days. Almost two dozen states held Democratic contests on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, and party officials hope to avoid a repeat in 2012. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003262.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Exceptions would be made for a few states -- including Iowa |
See? Even the national committee can't figure out how to out-fox the Iowa Legislature.
I still think the first voting should start in March at the earliest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
