Rethinking the primaries

We have currently 20 people running ( please correct me if I'm wrong). Once the primaries start, only a few states will have a complete list of candidates to choose from, while other states may choose from what's left over. Of course this system has worked for a long time. However, is it fair to all 50 states not to have a complete line up to select from?
(Full disclosure, husband and I can't vote in the primaries, one of the pitfalls of being independent. That may change should we settle down in an open primary state.)

I support a national primary day for all states. The current system is not fair or well designed.

We should return to the good old days when the party bigwigs chose the candidate in the proverbial smoked-filled room.

All this democracy nonsense about letting the people choose the candidate in primaries has resulted in some pretty terrible presidents in recent decades.

I support ranked-choice voting in the primaries. That way you can prefer a candidate who has little chance of winning without wasting your vote.

The NH primary ballots list the names of all candidates, even those you never heard of.

tres borrachos said:

The NH primary ballots list the names of all candidates, even those you never heard of.

Click to expand...

The green papers do a great job detailing how delegates are apportioned, which continues to lead me to believe there’ll be a brokered convention in ten months.

Phys251 said:

I support ranked-choice voting in the primaries. That way you can prefer a candidate who has little chance of winning without wasting your vote.

Click to expand...

RCV elected the Democrat in Maine-02, and could easily elect the next Senator from Maine.

TheParser said:

We should return to the good old days when the party bigwigs chose the candidate in the proverbial smoked-filled room.

All this democracy nonsense about letting the people choose the candidate in primaries has resulted in some pretty terrible presidents in recent decades.

Click to expand...

That’s how the 3rd ‘parties’ still do it.

Linc said:

The green papers do a great job detailing how delegates are apportioned, which continues to lead me to believe there’ll be a brokered convention in ten months.

Click to expand...

Every four years for as long as I can remember we who follow politics desperately want one of the conventions to end up brokered. And it never happens.

I can’t answer that because I don’t know, but what I do know is somehow the process has enabled destructive candidates to remain in the running just for fund raising and name recognition.

The debates started too soon, with too low of a bar. Lastly, CNN and MSNBC didn’t do them any favors by locking them down into dead end positions. Exactly who is in charge of the debate? Who allowed MSNBC to do the “Raise you hand” stunt? Tom Perez should have bolted up from his chair and yelled “Stop right there, right now!”, and taken the heat for saving their asses.

(My suspicious mind nags at me wondering if MSNBC wants them to lose because they depend on Trump for ratings... hummm...)

The 2016 RNC system was similar, but they had a motivated candidate with a practical plan at the start.

The problem with brokering is it seems so sleazy. Even if it works.

haymarket said:

Every four years for as long as I can remember we who follow politics desperately want one of the conventions to end up brokered. And it never happens.

Click to expand...

It’s the proportional allotment in all 58 primaries and caucuses that makes the Democratic process different from that of the Federalists.

Add to that Democrats having more open and modified primaries than the Teapublics, aling with the 2020 ‘operation chaos’ coming from the rat****ers.

When you have three candidates polling strongly, and 3 or 4 more who will run well in their state and region, I don’t see how DEMs escape an open convention. This is where you’ll really see the Faux Left DEMolition Squad troll farms in action.

Lovebug said:

We have currently 20 people running ( please correct me if I'm wrong). Once the primaries start, only a few states will have a complete list of candidates to choose from, while other states may choose from what's left over. Of course this system has worked for a long time. However, is it fair to all 50 states not to have a complete line up to select from?
(Full disclosure, husband and I can't vote in the primaries, one of the pitfalls of being independent. That may change should we settle down in an open primary state.)

Click to expand...

It the Democratic leaders in each state that decide on the rules to get on the ballot for the Democratic Primaries and or caucuses. If the DNC told the Democratic state party leaders to include everyone who hadn't withdrew on the ballot by the time of their primary and or caucus, I'm sure the state party leaders would comply. As it is, the different state party leaders have the ability to help any candidate they like or want and to hurt other candidates.

But it's been that way for quite a long time since we went to the popular primary votes for all states in 1976.

Linc said:

It’s the proportional allotment in all 58 primaries and caucuses that makes the Democratic process different from that of the Federalists.

Add to that Democrats having more open and modified primaries than the Teapublics, aling with the 2020 ‘operation chaos’ coming from the rat****ers.

When you have three candidates polling strongly, and 3 or 4 more who will run well in their state and region, I don’t see how DEMs escape an open convention. This is where you’ll really see the Faux Left DEMolition Squad troll farms in action.

Click to expand...

You did a good job analyzing the reason. I hope you are right as I have been waiting my whole life for a convention that goes many ballots and has lots of surprises.

But in the end, it never happens.

Lovebug said:

We have currently 20 people running ( please correct me if I'm wrong). Once the primaries start, only a few states will have a complete list of candidates to choose from, while other states may choose from what's left over. Of course this system has worked for a long time. However, is it fair to all 50 states not to have a complete line up to select from?
(Full disclosure, husband and I can't vote in the primaries, one of the pitfalls of being independent. That may change should we settle down in an open primary state.)

Click to expand...

I say we go back to the way we used to do it. No state involvement whatsoever with choosing a candidate to run, the parties choosing amongst themselves and using their own money to choose their candidate in the manner of their own choosing. Everyone who qualifies is on the election ballot. I am tired of going to polls multiple times a year. One and done I say.

Lovebug said:

We have currently 20 people running ( please correct me if I'm wrong). Once the primaries start, only a few states will have a complete list of candidates to choose from, while other states may choose from what's left over. Of course this system has worked for a long time. However, is it fair to all 50 states not to have a complete line up to select from?
(Full disclosure, husband and I can't vote in the primaries, one of the pitfalls of being independent. That may change should we settle down in an open primary state.)

Click to expand...

Are you asking if all states should be open primary states? I would have to think on that one before voting. There are good points and bad points for doing that. I was registered as an Independent for several years but, you're right, it basically leaves no one to vote for in the primaries. There actually isn't really such a thing as the Independent party. It is a total and complete waste of time. Since I lean to the right I changed my registration a few years ago to Republican, even though I still used to consider myself as an Independent and did indeed vote for a mix of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Now the Democrats have moved so far to the left that you can't find many moderates left. I usually vote for my Democratic mayor as he does a pretty good job and doesn't seem to be infected with TDS or far left liberalism. He's probably a closet far lefty but I'll give him credit for keeping his mouth shut and being somewhat moderate. Being in so-called red state he can't afford to go bat**** crazy.

Moderate Right said:

Are you asking if all states should be open primary states? I would have to think on that one before voting. There are good points and bad points for doing that. I was registered as an Independent for several years but, you're right, it basically leaves no one to vote for in the primaries. There actually isn't really such a thing as the Independent party. It is a total and complete waste of time. Since I lean to the right I changed my registration a few years ago to Republican, even though I still used to consider myself as an Independent and did indeed vote for a mix of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Now the Democrats have moved so far to the left that you can't find many moderates left. I usually vote for my Democratic mayor as he does a pretty good job and doesn't seem to be infected with TDS or far left liberalism. He's probably a closet far lefty but I'll give him credit for keeping his mouth shut and being somewhat moderate. Being in so-called red state he can't afford to go bat**** crazy.

Click to expand...

No. That was just saying that I can't vote in the primaries, regardless of how many candidates are left on the ballot. What bothers me is something we brought up even before the last election, when Reps had 16(?) candidates starting out.
Iowa and NH have the first say. Next comes super Tuesday. Ca and NJ (they are last, right?) select from whatever candidates are left. Is that fair?

Spreading out primaries prevents someone winning the nomination by a surprise last-minute clever advertisement. Spreading it across weeks allows time to see how the candidates handle pressure, workload and each other. No candidate can win by a single tag line, advertisement or talking point.

Notice how the initial front running primary candidate often is not the final candidate selected. Making the primaries all on one day would make it more like a beauty contest than presidential campaign.

Lovebug said:

No. That was just saying that I can't vote in the primaries, regardless of how many candidates are left on the ballot. What bothers me is something we brought up even before the last election, when Reps had 16(?) candidates starting out.
Iowa and NH have the first say. Next comes super Tuesday. Ca and NJ (they are last, right?) select from whatever candidates are left. Is that fair?

Click to expand...

All states should have open primaries.

I voted no because there are local candidates with local appeal, but are not really viable. Generally, there actually are hundreds of candidates for president who file, but most don't make the ballot or only in one state. If everyone filing for president was put on the national ballot in primaries, this would dramatically increase the number of people who do - so a primary ballot literally could have hundreds or thousands of candidates for president on it.

Getting on the ballot in a state is more than just filling out a form. It required a large number of signatures of registered voters, paying a BIG fee or both. There also are reporting requirements that vary for each state and on a state basis, not just federal. If everyone who wanted to be president could just fill out a form the list of people could be astronomical. A lot of people would get a kick out of seeing their name on ballots for president. They could frame it as a funny thing to talk about.

PirateMk1 said:

I say we go back to the way we used to do it. No state involvement whatsoever with choosing a candidate to run, the parties choosing amongst themselves and using their own money to choose their candidate in the manner of their own choosing. Everyone who qualifies is on the election ballot. I am tired of going to polls multiple times a year. One and done I say.

Click to expand...

So you want to eliminate democracy entirely and turn it over to insider party bosses? Who picks the party bosses? Themselves?

joko104 said:

All states should have open primaries.

Click to expand...

Either all, or none. All, that may lead to its own chaos. None leaves out us independents, lol.

Lovebug said:

We have currently 20 people running ( please correct me if I'm wrong). Once the primaries start, only a few states will have a complete list of candidates to choose from, while other states may choose from what's left over. Of course this system has worked for a long time. However, is it fair to all 50 states not to have a complete line up to select from?
(Full disclosure, husband and I can't vote in the primaries, one of the pitfalls of being independent. That may change should we settle down in an open primary state.)

Click to expand...

Yup. Every state falls under a category:

Top Two, Nonpartisan: Top Two, nonpartisan primaries eliminate partisan primaries in favor of a single nonpartisan primary open to all voters, including independents, with the top two vote getters, regardless of party, moving on to the general election.

Open: In an open primary, any registered voter may participate in the primaries, regardless or political affiliation. However, voters must choose one party’s ballot.

Mixed: A mixed primary incorporates elements of open and closed primaries. In most mixed primary states, the power to choose who can vote in primaries falls to the political parties. Some states permit independents to vote without altering their unaffiliated status, while others require a day-of declaration of party affiliation. However, these rules vary greatly from state-to-state.

Closed: In a closed primary, only party affiliated voters may vote in their party’s primary. Generally, voters must have been registered with that party before Primary Day (or other specified deadline). No unaffiliated voter may participate.

Colorado is an open state. Closed states betray American democracy by forcing voters to have to choose Party affiliation, which restricts what you can choose to represent you. In other words, your vote doesn't matter unless you are a Party member. It's about the Party, not the citizen voter.

To Democrats and Democrat voters, if you're talking about the Democrat primaries, the BIG problem lies with their super delegates. Now, I'm not saying not putting candidates on the ballot in all states isn't a problem. I believe all candidates should be accounted for when you go to the ballot box. But even if they were, you still have the issue of the super-delegates.

Let's take 2016 as one example. Bernie Sanders, if my memory serves me correctly, won the regular delegates in all the states that he was in the primaries, so it should have been him that had gone up against Trump. However, as everyone knows, that didn't happen. Hillary won the super-delegates. To give the abridged version, super-delegates are Democrat mayors, governors, and other government officials. They were established back in the 1970s as a way for the Establishment to put in their people instead of the voters deciding. In other words, it's a d!ck move by those in Washington to do that to their own people. I can't remember the exact number, but I think each super-delegate vote counts as 100 regular delegate votes. So getting back to the example, it was practically a no contest. If Bernie got 150 delegates of a state, Hillary only needed 2 super-delegates and she won. And it was like that the whole way through that primary and she won the nomination, while Bernie got screwed.

This election won't be much different. Whoever the super-delegates want to go with, that candidate will win. So if Andrew Yang got more regular delegates than anyone else, and, let's say, Elizabeth Warren got 1-3 super-delegates (depending on the number of regular delegates there are), she wins that state. That's a rip off because the people of the Democrat base's voice doesn't matter in these elections, for the most part. You have some cases where the super-delegates do pick someone that the base likes. But beyond those certain exceptions, the voters have no say on who they want as their candidate, like 2016.

Again, to the Democrats and Democrat voters, if you want this to stop, you need to bring this issue up because having all the candidates on the ballot or not doesn't matter. 9 out 10, you won't get who you want, and in this instance, the current front runner is Biden and there's a high possibility he'll get the nomination. I'll bet he's not as popular with the people of the base as what this polling data is claiming, especially with young people (Andrew Yang has their votes). I understand the integrity, duty, and name recognition aspect of it, but it, maybe, would be better to not be on the ballot because all you're doing is spending money and time on something that's being rigged in favor of a member of the Establishment, and instead, focus on putting pressure on your leaders and getting rid of the super-delegate system. That's where you need to focus your attention.

joko104 said:

So you want to eliminate democracy entirely and turn it over to insider party bosses? Who picks the party bosses? Themselves?

Click to expand...

I dont care what the parties do or how they pick their bosses. All I care about is they dont get access to government money and power, to pick their people and they are on a level playing field. It used to be there was only one official election and uniform set of rules to get on the ballot. The parties did their own thing on determining who from the party, if anyone, would run for a certain seat. The party was a mechanism to get on the ballot easier by helping to meet the ballot rules easier with an already in place organization.

Lovebug said:

No. That was just saying that I can't vote in the primaries, regardless of how many candidates are left on the ballot. What bothers me is something we brought up even before the last election, when Reps had 16(?) candidates starting out.
Iowa and NH have the first say. Next comes super Tuesday. Ca and NJ (they are last, right?) select from whatever candidates are left. Is that fair?

Click to expand...

Oh. Now I understand. There has got to be a better way to do this stuff, maybe a lottery or a rotating take turns scenario. I think it is important that you have to campaign in every state and that even Wyoming has a say in who is president but the way we currently do it causes our elections to cost billions and billions of dollars, probably over a trillion with all races added up. There's something wrong with that picture. It's beyond disgusting the amount of money thrown around at election time when there are so much better uses for that money. People gripe about Citizen's United but seem perfectly fine with elections costing multi-billions of dollars. I don't give a dime to anyone and don't check any donation boxes on my tax return. They've already had millions of dollars given to them by everyone else. They don't need any from me. Even Bernie takes in multi-millions of dollars in donations which could be used to help the poor instead. The entire system is rigged and everyone is a crook.