Basis for state primaries

Have been trying to find what statute (or court decision) was the foundation for our tradition of political parties holding primaries. Find many descriptions of the process, and abuses of 'bosses' and political machines prior to the primary tradition. But am finding no reference to the statute that set up this process.

hikinmike said:

Have been trying to find what statute (or court decision) was the foundation for our tradition of political parties holding primaries. Find many descriptions of the process, and abuses of 'bosses' and political machines prior to the primary tradition. But am finding no reference to the statute that set up this process.

Click to expand...

Each state has its own election laws. Try looking at individual states rather than looking for it in federal law.

Kal'Stang said:

Each state has its own election laws. Try looking at individual states rather than looking for it in federal law.

Click to expand...

Thanks...

The Founding Fathers designed a one party system.

They didn't want parties, they just evolved on their own, and people had to deal with it.

late said:

The Founding Fathers designed a one party system.

They didn't want parties, they just evolved on their own, and people had to deal with it.

Click to expand...

This is correct to an extent. While the Founding Fathers didn't want a party system they knew it was inevitable because of peoples Right to Association. They knew that Rights are more important than trying to stop it.

Kal'Stang said:

This is correct to an extent. While the Founding Fathers didn't want a party system they knew it was inevitable because of peoples Right to Association. They knew that Rights are more important than trying to stop it.

Click to expand...

Not sure that they thought it was inevitable. I do know they hoped to avoid partisan conflict.

late said:

Not sure that they thought it was inevitable. I do know they hoped to avoid partisan conflict.

Click to expand...

Oh no, they knew it for the simple fact that parties existed during their time also. Hamilton and other leaders formed the Federalist Party who was for federal involvement in protecting businesses but otherwise keep to itself. This despite Hamilton thinking that parties were a vice to be guarded against. Jefferson and other leaders formed the Democratic-Republican party which was essentially small government period leaving things to the States and local communities. This despite Jefferson who said "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Parties to the Founders were a necessary evil.

Kal'Stang said:

Oh no, they knew it for the simple fact that parties existed during their time also. Hamilton and other leaders formed the Federalist Party who was for federal involvement in protecting businesses but otherwise keep to itself. This despite Hamilton thinking that parties were a vice to be guarded against. Jefferson and other leaders formed the Democratic-Republican party which was essentially small government period leaving things to the States and local communities. This despite Jefferson who said "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Parties to the Founders were a necessary evil.

Click to expand...

When they designed the thing, they didn't want parties. Once the government started, the bickering pushed them to form parties.

hikinmike said:

Have been trying to find what statute (or court decision) was the foundation for our tradition of political parties holding primaries. Find many descriptions of the process, and abuses of 'bosses' and political machines prior to the primary tradition. But am finding no reference to the statute that set up this process.

Click to expand...

This is a good inquiry because the state is providing a service to the parties to hold their primary elections and for either savings or convenience, they are typically held at the same time, although I do recall that there were some states were the party primaries were on different dates in a state.

I'm not a fan of open primaries because the parties should be able to choose their candidate by those in the party, but I can understand some states making the decision to run the primary. If the party didn't want an open primary in such a state, then shey should conduct their own primary and foot the bill.

California has taken an interesting approach by somewhat bypassing the parties by having the top 2 candidates regardless of party moving on to the general election. If the 2 best candidates are from the same party, then so be it. Anything that helps awaken the dinosaurs is probably a good thing and if it doesn't come from the other party, then the same party is fine by me.