Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Nowhere Man]

The best thing about Hillary staying in is that we got to see how poorly the system is working. Thanks to Florida and Michigan, I'm pretty sure this is going to finally be addressed and not just forgotten about until it's too late to change.


My proposals:

1. Adios New Hampshire and Iowa. You get to return to being just another state. I propose a rotation system based on regions. We could have, say, regions set up similar to the college ball divisions, and let there be a draw to determine who will go first (or just one draw to start the process, and then let it follow that order).

Upside: Think of the fuel saved by candidates not having to jet from New England to the Midwest.

Downside: Jealousy. New Hampshire and Iowa could become quite cranky. They might be particularly aggravated by their unconstitutional stipulations that they go first in any primary. I think that's a major part of why change hasn't happened sooner. Of course, at this point, I'm sure Florida and Michigan are ready to pass such resolutions if such favoritism continues. 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.

2. A message to the laggard states. After seeing what really happens when someone "takes it to Oregon", what do we have to support being the last state to vote?

a) Worriless-free votiing. I mean, you're from Oregon, c'mon. You wanted a say in the primary? Well, what on earth were you thinking by living in Oregon? Sorry, your state served Obama by demonstrating that he didn't need to be there to get the vote.

3. So much for the notion that the primary schedule allows the candidates to visit every state.

What we've seen proves quite the opposite.

As such, how do we fix the farce that is the primaries?

Or, rather, if you think they're fine, please go into detail without stating that no one's ever found a problem with how it is.

[SirFink]

I've never really cared much for the primaries. For one thing, I'm not a
Republican or a Democrat and, both being private organizations, they can bloody well do what they want and decide on a candidate however they want. Just don't spend my tax dollars doing it.

As an outside observer, I'd prefer they do something like they used to do in the old days and like some of the smaller parties still do, i.e. debate it out for a week at a convention and have reps from each state vote for the candidate they want.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Kuros]

[Nowhere Man]

Well, at least one of you has shared with us the gleeful story of how our primaries are set up so that candidates can spend time in each of the fifty states. This was characterized as wonderful because it meant that the candidates get around to everyone and no one gets ignored.

Mind you, this is coming from one of you two who are now saying that nothing's broken.

On this rare occasion that the primaries were carried out to the last state without a decisive winner, we saw just the opposite of what's been claimed above: Obama chose not to campaign in several states as a display of power. I submit that the primaries are broken because they do not serve the purpose given for why they are structured the way they are.

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?

Or to anyone who cares to answer: If New Hampshire's primary position were to be switched with Montana's, what would the New Hampshirites have to say about it?

Would it be:

OK. No problem. Fair is fair.

or

What? We're getting screwed! No way!

Would it be screwing either of these states to relegate them to the back?

And Kuros, I think the resolution of Michigan and Florida was a fair call, but that's beside the point. Why did Florida and Michigan change their primary dates? Because the party leaders there think the system is broken.

[ontheway]

The constantly changing Primary system has been manipulated by candidates and their supporters inside the parties to give themselves some personal advantage in the process. A better system would be based on giving the voters more time to see, hear and choose candidates, broaden the selection, allow candidates to compete with small budgets in the early stages of the process and build their campaigns, gain media and public attention and increase their fundraising abilities over time.

The one good tradition we have is having New Hampshire and Iowa come first and second in the process. This is the way it should be. But, we should add two more.

There should be no primaries or caucuses allowed by the parties before February. We should then begin a slow process, with a few small early states in a variety of regions holding one vote per week through February and March. All larger states should be grouped by week with two week gaps throughout April, May and early June. The majority of the delegates from the big electoral college states should have to wait until the end.


Here is a sample proposal:

week #: February:

1 New Hampshire (4)
2 Iowa (7)
3 South Carolina (8
4 Nevada (5)

March

5 West Virginia (5)
6 Oregon (7)
7 Mississippi (6)
8 New Mexico (5)

April

9 (none)
10 Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, DC (34)
11 (none)
12 North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, Colorado (33)
13 (none)

May

14 Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Hawaii (57)
15 (none)
16 Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky (60)
17 (none)

June

18 Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, Massachusetts (118)
19 (none)
20 California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania (189)

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Nowhere Man]

[OneWayTraffic]

Why should there even be a primary? Why not just have all of the candiates go up against each other in a 2 round national vote. Cull the low pollers in the first ballot, and then have a six week campaign, before voting again for a president. Anyone from any party, or no party can apply.

The whole primary and electoral college thing belongs in history class, not politics.

[OneWayTraffic]

[ontheway]

What made this year's primary season seem so long was that everyone started campaigning actively and the organized debates started in spring of 2007. This happened because of the many states and especially large states that moved their primaries to the front of the primary schedule.

If we can set up a system with the large states grouped at the end, we can wring 6 months back out of the system.

This would be a difficult project because in the United States there is no such thing as a national election, and the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to demand or control elections in that way, nor should it.

Elections are organized and held state by state. The rules are made by the states. Decentralization of power by means of "state's rights" (powerful state governments, state control of elections, powers reserved to the states, an army (national guard) under control of each state governor) may be the only thing that has prevented some presidents and generals from attempting a miltary coup. So, the state control of elections and the Electoral College System are good things.

Electoral traditions are also good things, sometimes. Our primary system seemed to work better when there were a few early contests in the traditional small states. Rotation of the first states sounds "fair" but that is what resulted in this year's front loaded primary voting schedule with leapfrogging of primary dates. We need to get back to the tradition of New Hampshire and Iowa voting early. We can add a few others. But when everyone demands a turn, the system will get broken over and over again.

Many states hold other elections at the same time as their presidential primaries, they have no interest in constant change nor in coming first. Also, few are aware of the many difficulties of holding the first primary (Iowa holds the first caucus). In New Hampshire's primary there can be over 100 candidates on the ballot in each party primary. This is also a good thing. We need to give every adult American the chance to "grow up to be President of the United States." This is one of the sacred myths of America that not only needs to be maintained, it needs to be preserved and strengthened. It needs to be true. It needs the tradition of New Hampshire and Iowa. Only a small state in both size and population with a tolerance for hundreds of candidates can take on this role.

We also need to have small, early votes to give the candidates time to get their message out, and more importantly, to give the people time to hear the messages, to discuss and think about them. Gourmet food takes longer to prepare and is generally preferred to fast food, and I think that analogy is why we need to have some time in the primary caucus system and not have all the primaries on one day or even in one or two months.

[ontheway]

We should strive to have early single state contests, one per week, in February and March. These should be in small states with small populations, generally smaller geographically, and shoud be established as semi-permanent traditions.

We should follow with 4 regional contests with groups of states, two in April and two in May. There should be a week in between for campaigning, debates, media commentary and time for the public to think about past results.

We end with a super Tuesday in June with a large group states. It might be a good idea to move a two or three more large states to the final Super Tuesday in June as well. After having time to watch the candidates in action beginning in February, we could choose a majority of delegates on the first Tuesday in June.


Another proposal:

week #: February:

1 New Hampshire (4)
2 Iowa (7)
3 South Carolina (8
4 Oregon (7)

March

5 West Virginia (5)
6 Nevada (5)
7 Mississippi (6)
8 Hawaii (4), Guam, Peurto Rico

April

9 (none)
10 Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, DC (61)
11 (none)
12 North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, New Mexico (59)
13 (none)

May

14 Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas (60)
15 (none)
16 , Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky (65)
17 (none)

June

18 California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina (247)

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Nowhere Man]

I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm opposed to Sir Fink or OWT's ideas, but I don't see that kind of massive change (essentially scrapping the primary system) as on the table at this point. By "on the table", I mean that there are almost certainly going to be key changes before 2012, and I'd like to stay focused on what those changes might be.

Ontheway, I'm not sure, but I think that having all the big primaries at the end would still favor moneyed candidates. I must admit, though, the blowout finale version would probably be the most entertaining to watch. If I were a film producer, I'd script the primaries that way.

Then, we go back to the issue of who goes first.

The leapfrogging of states was due to the fact that some states are always early and others always late. You claim that rotating who goes first would perpetuate the leapfrogging and then propose the states remain in a fixed order. I'm having a hard time grasping the logic there.

Moving one or two states (you propose Nevada or Oregon) does not make things fairer to the states that aren't moved. And again, I don't see how this is going to resolve leapfrogging issues.

I have yet to see any explanation as to why New Hampshire and Iowa going first is correct as it is. I also don't know what logic lies behind choosing South Carolina and Nevada/Oregon for a more privileged position.

Your point about media coverage would be difficult to enforce, but could be resolved by having primaries scheduled by region.

Yata,

As regards time, I do think it was pretty long this time, but I don't necessarily think it has to be shortened. The biggest problem I saw was that 5-6 week lull roundabout April. It seemed completely arbitrary to have no primaries over that stretch of time, and it also seemed that that was when the attacks grew particularly vicious. Whatever changes will come, I think there's a lot to be said for even spacing between contests.

[Ya-ta Boy]