Does our Presidential primary system need changed?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

I know it's early, but since we seem to be already talking about who is going to run in the next election, I figure this is a topic that is worth discussing as well.

1. Do you like the party set-up like it is now?
2. Do you like the way primaries go for months like they do now?

First, I think that the way the party primaries are set up right now, we tend to get more extreme candidates because the more moderate ones seem to have a difficult time making it through their respective party primaries. I am not sure what changes could be made to this system, short of having an open primary where the top 2 candidates have a run-off. Maybe have 3 cut-offs such as cutting down the field to 10, 5, then 2 candidates that can then pick their VP choices. I don't care if both are Republican of Democrat. I think having something like this could help give the more moderate candidates a better shot.

As for the way our current primaries are set up, I hate that the first few seem to have such a large impact on who is considered to be "in the running" and other candidate supporters feel their candidate has no shot, so they try to choose between the "viable candidates." I say have every state vote on the same day, that way a few states don't have any control over who gets the nomination. I would put this in with the first suggestion I mentioned above.

[billisonboard]

2 important facts to have in mind with this discussion:

1) Political parties are private organizations.
2) The Federal Government has no constitutional basis for control of primary elections.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 22, 2011 13:54:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

2 important facts to have in mind with this discussion:

1) Political parties are private organizations.
2) The Federal Government has no constitutional basis for control of primary elections.

Doesn't mean that people can't have ideas that they would like to see in these primaries...

[handyman2]

I would like to see the primaries all within a three week period. Get all the media BS over with quickly.

[ChiTownVenture]

Mar 22, 2011 15:14:28 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Mar 22, 2011 13:54:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

2 important facts to have in mind with this discussion:

1) Political parties are private organizations.
2) The Federal Government has no constitutional basis for control of primary elections.

Doesn't mean that people can't have ideas that they would like to see in these primaries...

It would be interesting to have the voters vote in the primaries for the person they would like to see as President, and then have a run off election of each parties highest or anybody above a set percent.

[billisonboard]

Mar 22, 2011 15:36:29 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

I would like to see the primaries all within a three week period. Get all the media BS over with quickly.

A short primary season works to the advantage of those who already have name recognition, have the backing of the political establishment, and have either their own wealth to spend or the backing of those with a large amount of money to spend. It would also force candidates to focus solely on the states with large delegations to the national conventions.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 22, 2011 16:12:18 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 22, 2011 15:36:29 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

I would like to see the primaries all within a three week period. Get all the media BS over with quickly.

A short primary season works to the advantage of those who already have name recognition, have the backing of the political establishment, and have either their own wealth to spend or the backing of those with a large amount of money to spend. It would also force candidates to focus solely on the states with large delegations to the national conventions.

As opposed to focusing on the first 4 or 5 primaries like candidates do now??

[billisonboard]

Mar 22, 2011 16:48:20 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Mar 22, 2011 16:12:18 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A short primary season works to the advantage of those who already have name recognition, have the backing of the political establishment, and have either their own wealth to spend or the backing of those with a large amount of money to spend. It would also force candidates to focus solely on the states with large delegations to the national conventions.

As opposed to focusing on the first 4 or 5 primaries like candidates do now??

Look at what those early primaries are. The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary allow for a candidate to establish a following without the huge media buy required of California, New York, and Texas. Better that they focus on convincing voters in those states to vote for them rather than spend all their time convincing contributors to finance their media blitz in big states.

[Angel!]

First, I think that the way the party primaries are set up right now, we tend to get more extreme candidates because the more moderate ones seem to have a difficult time making it through their respective party primaries.

I think this is a big problem now, but I don't know how you fix it. The more moderate candidates that would garner a lot of independent & moderate voters can't win a primary because they won't get enough support within their party to win the primaries.

I was reading about Mitch Daniels after you mentioned him on the other threads & he seems like a good, moderate candidate. The only problem is that he will likely not win the primaries for the very reason that he could likely win the presidency. As a registered democrat, I would seriously consider voting for this guy because he is focused on fiscal issues, not social issues. I would love a fiscally conservative president that is either liberal on social issues or that wants to keep the federal govt out of social issues. But, I don't think he can win the primaries without focusing on social issues.

[billisonboard]

Mar 22, 2011 17:41:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

First, I think that the way the party primaries are set up right now, we tend to get more extreme candidates because the more moderate ones seem to have a difficult time making it through their respective party primaries.

I think this is a big problem now, but I don't know how you fix it. ...

I see problems with every solution.

[safeharbor37]

billisonboard,
I think you are correct in your assessment, however, I don't there is anything wrong with the present system that can't be addressed on a State by State basis.
TWIMC,
Most suggestions, like proposing popular election for the Presidency, would make the system worse. If you're sincerely interested and want to do something, contact your party spokesman and get involved. Sitting around complaining won't get anything done, although it does makes you more susceptible to the half-baked ideas of some of our less credible politicians [and powers behind the scenes]..

[Deleted]

I'm not sure how to improve it?

I do wish in my personal state that independents could vote in the primary... You have to be aligned with a party, or you get no vote in the primary... I'd rather open primaries...

[billisonboard]

Mar 22, 2011 18:36:34 GMT -5 oped said:

I'm not sure how to improve it?

I do wish in my personal state that independents could vote in the primary... You have to be aligned with a party, or you get no vote in the primary... I'd rather open primaries...

Why should non-Republicans get to help decide who the Republicans have represent them in the general election?

[Deleted]

Why should independents not be allowed to help decide who represents them?

It may surprise you, but i have voted for Republican candidates in the past... even in the last election... There are republicans I WOULD vote for... if they could get nominated...

[billisonboard]

Mar 22, 2011 19:22:14 GMT -5 oped said:

Why should independents not be allowed to help decide who represents them?

It may surprise you, but i have voted for Republican candidates in the past... even in the last election... There are republicans I WOULD vote for... if they could get nominated...

Okay, I guess I needed to spell it out completely. Why should non-Democrats get to help decide who the Democrats have represent them in the general election? Why should non-Libertarians get to help decide who the Libertarians have represent them in the general election? etc?, etc?, etc? Take your pick.

Independents do get to decide who represents them. They vote in the general election which is when the people decide who will represent them. They don't get to decide who will represent any political party is all.

[Deleted]

Which means that if you are moderate and can be represented well by moderate candidates in any party, you don't have a say in picking who will be available to run...

I do not like having to identify with a party in order to express who i'd like on the ballot... and it is so easy to change, that is doesn't mean much anyway... My father has swapped back and forth several times because of which primary he'd like to vote in...

Of coarse... given that the primaries are decided by only a few states often times, i guess most of us are NOT given the choice of who will run...

[billisonboard]

Mar 22, 2011 19:52:51 GMT -5 oped said:

Which means that if you are moderate and can be represented well by moderate candidates in any party, you don't have a say in picking who will be available to run...

Register as member of any party and you have a say within that party.

I do not like having to identify with a party in order to express who i'd like on the ballot...

Whether you "like" it or not, it is reasonable that you have to identify with a party in order to help decide who they will have as their representative on the general election ballot.

and it is so easy to change, that is doesn't mean much anyway... My father has swapped back and forth several times because of which primary he'd like to vote in...

Party identification is very weak in this country but at least one has to declare they are a member of a party before they get to vote in the primary.

Of coarse... given that the primaries are decided by only a few states often times, i guess most of us are NOT given the choice of who will run.

True. The primary in my state is late enough in the process that I didn't even bother to vote in the 2008 primary.
.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 22, 2011 17:24:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 22, 2011 16:48:20 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

As opposed to focusing on the first 4 or 5 primaries like candidates do now??

Look at what those early primaries are. The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary allow for a candidate to establish a following without the huge media buy required of California, New York, and Texas. Better that they focus on convincing voters in those states to vote for them rather than spend all their time convincing contributors to finance their media blitz in big states.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 22, 2011 17:24:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 22, 2011 16:48:20 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

As opposed to focusing on the first 4 or 5 primaries like candidates do now??

Look at what those early primaries are. The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary allow for a candidate to establish a following without the huge media buy required of California, New York, and Texas. Better that they focus on convincing voters in those states to vote for them rather than spend all their time convincing contributors to finance their media blitz in big states.

So it's better that a few smaller states basically have that much power to set the tone for the rest of the states? Just have a one day election to get rid of that problem.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 22, 2011 19:52:51 GMT -5 oped said:

Which means that if you are moderate and can be represented well by moderate candidates in any party, you don't have a say in picking who will be available to run...

I do not like having to identify with a party in order to express who i'd like on the ballot... and it is so easy to change, that is doesn't mean much anyway... My father has swapped back and forth several times because of which primary he'd like to vote in...

Of coarse... given that the primaries are decided by only a few states often times, i guess most of us are NOT given the choice of who will run...

I agree, just have open primaries for all candidates interested and let everybody vote for the person they think would be best.

[billisonboard]

Mar 22, 2011 21:45:04 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Mar 22, 2011 17:24:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Look at what those early primaries are. The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary allow for a candidate to establish a following without the huge media buy required of California, New York, and Texas. Better that they focus on convincing voters in those states to vote for them rather than spend all their time convincing contributors to finance their media blitz in big states.

So it's better that a few smaller states basically have that much power to set the tone for the rest of the states? Just have a one day election to get rid of that problem.

A one day election would throw it to the conventions to determine the nominee.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 22, 2011 22:24:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 22, 2011 21:45:04 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

So it's better that a few smaller states basically have that much power to set the tone for the rest of the states? Just have a one day election to get rid of that problem.

A one day election would throw it to the conventions to determine the nominee.

It would just be a shorter and faster version of what we have now.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 22, 2011 17:41:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

First, I think that the way the party primaries are set up right now, we tend to get more extreme candidates because the more moderate ones seem to have a difficult time making it through their respective party primaries.

I think this is a big problem now, but I don't know how you fix it. The more moderate candidates that would garner a lot of independent & moderate voters can't win a primary because they won't get enough support within their party to win the primaries.

I was reading about Mitch Daniels after you mentioned him on the other threads & he seems like a good, moderate candidate. The only problem is that he will likely not win the primaries for the very reason that he could likely win the presidency. As a registered democrat, I would seriously consider voting for this guy because he is focused on fiscal issues, not social issues. I would love a fiscally conservative president that is either liberal on social issues or that wants to keep the federal govt out of social issues. But, I don't think he can win the primaries without focusing on social issues.

I don't really know enough about him to have a good, solid opinion of his views. Although I will say I have heard about him a few times now and has sparked some interest. You are right in saying he likely wouldn't make it through the primaries.

[safeharbor37]

Small State primaries allow relatively unknown, under financed candidates to get known and develop some support. Big State primaries would allow well financed, well known candidates to lock up the nomination before the public got to know the other candidates. So, it seems to me, that having the small State primaries first is a good idea.
There is no legal reason why primaries must be held at all. Parties could simply hold State conventions choosing delegates any way they wanted. There were some advantages to the old "smoke filled rooms" [although they'd probably be "smoke free rooms" nowadays].
Alternatives:
1] Must register in a party to vote in their primary.
2] Can choose which primary in which to vote [not required to register in a party].
There is no reason why one couldn't determine which candidate to vote for and then register in that party since it does not require that one vote for the same person in the general election [although that doesn't make sense since, if you liked the other candidate, why wouldn't you register in the other party to vote for him/her in that primary]. But, of course, if your guy doesn't win the primary you're free to vote for someone else in the general election.
Alternatively you might wish to vote in all the primaries of whatever party. That would effectively be a double [multiple] vote and is anti-democratic since the majority party would then be able to determine the candidate of the opposing party. That's the main reason why you can't [and shouldn't be able to] participate in more than one primary.