Primary madness (again): Who's on first?

[thatcrazycajun]

First Florida tries to usurp Iowa and New Hampshire's traditional spotlight at the start of Presidential nominating primary/caucus season, incurring the wrath of the Democratic National Committee and retribution against their delegates. Now South Carolina, just north of us here in Jawja, is getting into the act. (See Forbes Online story here.)

I don't know about y'all, but I've had a bellyful of this childish partisan squabbling over whose state gets to be first. Why in the name of Thomas Paine can't Congress simply pass a law requiring all states to hold their primaries and/or caucuses on the same day...say, in March of each presidential election year? That would eliminate all this foolishness, insure no state gets slighted by candidates for being later in the lineup and get the nominees chosen well in advance of the conventions. Any takers?

Comments

[dsthomas.livejournal.com]

I can somewhat understand the need to do them at different times, however, I have ideas as to whom (?) would go first and how to determine the order.

Idea one: Regionally, this way politicians can keep costs down (OMG!! NO!!) by doing their campaigning (is this even a word, much less spelled correctly? Somehow, it just doesn't look right..) by region rather than flying haphazardly around the nation.

Idea two: Alphabetically. This way, Alabama would finally be FIRST in SOMETHING! Other than that, I have no reason why, cept to stop the squabbling. Can't have THAT though, can we?

Idea three: Do as you suggest and make it all the same day.

Idea four: Go by date... in order of when each state became part of the union. This would be fair, wouldn't it?

OR, we could put all the state names in a hat and draw names! Then we'd be treating all states the same; as juveniles, like they are acting!

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

"Why" is simple:

Art. II, Sec. 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...

Amendment XII: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President...

The important bit is that first part, in which the manner of choosing electors is given unto the states. It seems to me that as a consequence, Congress cannot simply pass legislation to conform a primary date, but that the Constitution would require amending.

The dispute over primary dates is largely spurred by a desire to have a greater voice in the selection of the ultimate candidates, as well as some serious state vs. party squabbles (e.g., Florida, in which the Republican majority in its legislature pushed the primary date earlier than that permitted by the Democratic Party, who in turn will punish the state by removing its representatives from the party's convention -- this is being challenged in court, so don't touch that dial).

Personally, I'd like to see numerous changes to the electoral process, including the abolition of the electoral college, which again will require a Constitutional amendment. Bear in mind also that there's shaping up to be a superprimary date (Feb 5, IIRC) on which some large number of states will be holding a primary -- and that campaigning in so many places at once costs LOTS of scratch, which is likely to steamroller Cinderella bids. Do you WANT your presidential candidates to be virtually guaranteed to be all from the same mold? That's a likely result of a superprimary date.

I don't have all the answers; I do know, though, that even the worst of the Dems this time around (Clinton, IMO) stomps the crap out of the best of the Republican field (Ron Paul, I'd say).

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'd like to see numerous changes to the electoral process, including the abolition of the electoral college, which again will require a Constitutional amendment.

Personally, I'd lik to see a parliamentary system, but I don't think that's ever going to happen in this country in my lifetime.

I do know, though, that even the worst of the Dems this time around (Clinton, IMO) stomps the crap out of the best of the Republican field (Ron Paul, I'd say).

What do you think of Mike Huckabee? I fundamentally disagree with him on a number of issues, but he does seem to at least be thoughtful and sincere, and that's honestly very appealing to me.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Mike Huckabee is sort of warm and fuzzy. Well that is until you get to abortion rights, gay rights and Iraq.
Then he turns into all the other Republicans.
Then again, he is certainly more honest the "Hilarity".
Personally, I'd love a Republican ticked of a Chuck Hagel and Jim Ramstad or Lincoln Chaffee. Then I actually would vote G.O.P.
Richardson is my choice for the Dems, but I doubt he'll make it.
All told if it's Clinton and a Republican, I'm voting Green.
So I guess my mind is made up.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

While there is no other real comparison, Tom Tancredo also appears to be sincere (if not thoughtful) about his issue. (Of course, his issue is hating all non-Euro-descended Christian Americans, so points off for that.)

Huckabee is probably the next least bad after Paul; I also have some serious problems with him on issues, but I think we could have some beers and shoot the breeze, which I could never do with, say, Rudy.

But I'd still vote for Mrs. Triangulation (holding my nose all the way) over any of them.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Actually, Article II, Section I states "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." However, that applies to the general election, not the primaries. Primaries are, ultimately, a function of individual political parties (a party can choose its candidate however it likes, and someone can run for President without any party).

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

As Dean recently said, sure we'll find a way to lose it (or words to that effect).
I think they should just remove every control and let a new status quo establish itself.
As I see it, it will cut the cost of various campaigns and there will be less voter burn out.
Hey, great idea for a button:
"Voter turn out.
Not voter burn out!"

Let the children play until the adults vote

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Here's the hows and whys. There's even a section on alternative plans. The main reason the primaries are held by state plan instead of national g'vmnt fiat is that we are a federal republic. That means the states hold the power unless it is specifically given to the national g'vmnt. At least that's what the constitution says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_primary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#Representativeness

Just one thing. The abolition of the electoral college would lead to majority rule because that is what the college is specifically designed to prevent. Majority rule means that small states like Delaware would have no real say in the election. New York and California alone could nearly determine the outcome.

One side effect of that is that the gerrymandering that would follow the first majority controlled election would insure that the first party to win would be in power until the second civil war changed the g'vmnt.

It would take a constitutional amendment to change the system of voting which has kept us free of tyranny for 230 years, and I say thank God for that.