Chris Branch ([info]strangertides) wrote,
@ 2004-03-04 21:23:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
primary politics in the US
I was wondering... seems like this is something I should have wondered about before now - I guess I'm slow, but anyway, I was wondering:

Why are states given the freedom to choose a primary date when the primary leads up to a federal election? Isn't it obvious that this gives more influence to the primaries held earlier and makes all but irrelevant the later primaries?

I realize that states have many reasons for choosing the dates they do; that's not my question, I'm asking why there isn't a federal law that sets the date so that states must rearrange their business to conform to it. The inconvenience to the state governments would seem to be a lesser concern than having a system in which voters in all states are treated equally.

I have a theory, but I don't like it, so I'm curious what others think.

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]lonesomenumber1
2004-03-04 10:24 pm UTC (link)
Are you suggesting that all the primaries should be held on one day?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]strangertides
2004-03-05 05:31 am UTC (link)
Oops, I guess I wasn't too clear about the main point I was trying to make! Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Maybe I'm missing some obvious problem with that idea?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lonesomenumber1
2004-03-05 10:17 am UTC (link)
Well, as [info]teddystutz pointed out below, you'd never see a candidate in New Hampshire again. I think the candidates need to explain what they're going to do for states with small populations as well as larger states. Should the more populous states, with their larger number of delegates, have a proportionate say in the nominations? Sure. But eventually a candidate is going to be President of all the states, even Wyoming and North Dakota.

One solution might be to have regional primary days -- East, Central and West -- a few months apart. Require all the states in one region to hold their primaries and caucuses on the same day. I'm sure there's a flaw in this idea, too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]strangertides
2004-03-05 10:54 am UTC (link)
Well, aren't states kind of arbitrary boundaries anyway? What would be lost if, say, New Hampshire and Vermont were to merge into one state (New Vermontshire)? I think that's what you're implying by suggesting regional primaries - that the interests of all the states in a region probably coincide to some extent.

But I guess I should say what I'm afraid is the real reason we don't have a national primary day, and it's less honorable than Teddy's reasoning...

I think it's in the interest of the party holding the primary to have one candidate seem to emerge as the leader over a period of time. It gradually raises awareness in the eyes of the voters that, hey, this guy whom we may never have heard of last year is a viable alternative to the incumbent (or his VP), who's been a household name for at least four years, if not eight or more.

I say "seem", because of course that's not really what's happening: the first few primaries establish who's going to emerge as the front-runner; beyond that, I don't think anyone would deny that there's a huge momentum effect - people start voting for him because he's the front-runner, or staying home from the polls because the guy they were going to support isn't.

If all the primaries were held on the same day, we'd get a true picture of what voters in all states are thinking without being influenced by prior contests. I'd expect the result to be a much more even distribution among the serious candidates, with the winner being the guy who got maybe 20% of the vote.

I'm afraid (to finally get to my point) that either party thinks that this would be a less than ringing endorsement of their nominee - it would seem (and in fact, be) that this guy just came out of nowhere, happened to get a few more votes than five or six other candidates, and suddenly he's the nominee. So those who were on the fence between the two parties would stick with the incumbent, who's more familiar to them.

Now to me, this theory is unflattering to both politicians and voters, but unfortunately I suspect it's correct.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lonesomenumber1
2004-03-07 10:05 pm UTC (link)
What would be lost if, say, New Hampshire and Vermont were to merge into one state (New Vermontshire)?

I suspect folks from New Hampshire and Vermont would say a lot would be lost! In many ways, the political divisions in these states tend to mirror the rest of the country (urban vs. rural), but overall, Vermont is much more liberal than New Hampshire.

I think that's what you're implying by suggesting regional primaries - that the interests of all the states in a region probably coincide to some extent.

Not really. I was just trying to divide the country into areas with (very) roughly equal populations, and to do it in such a way that the nomination wouldn't be a foregone conclusion until New York/Texas/California has had its primary). I'm sure you could shoot this idea full of holes.

I think the effect you're describing is a result of the way the system is constructed more than a reason. It's evolved over a long period of time, after all, and I don't believe that it worked this way forty years ago. Hell, even it even looked very unlikely that Clinton would be nominated until pretty late.

But I'm sure the Democratic and Republican parties would fight to keep the status quo for the reasons you've mentioned.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Failed Government 101
[info]teddystutz
2004-03-05 07:37 am UTC (link)
Hmmm, it's an interesting concept but wouldn't that give more emphasis to large population states that have more delegates? I mean more that they have now. If I were a politician (heaven forbid!) I would ignore places like New Hampshire in favor of states like New York, California, etc....

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Failed Government 101
[info]strangertides
2004-03-05 07:48 am UTC (link)
Right, and why not? That's why they have more delegates: because of their populations. If we disagree with that system we could change it, but I think that's a separate issue from having primaries on the same day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Failed Government 101
[info]teddystutz
2004-03-05 11:16 am UTC (link)
I was thinking of the campaigning that would be done leading up to that single primary day, not the delegates themselves. Many small population states only see presidential level politicians during election years. I think a lot more of their time would be preempted by the "biggies."

Here is my really cynical side showing....The whole point is mute since we don't directly legislate for the top offices. During interviews on NPR, I have heard repeatedly that most delegates say they will vote their party line no matter the popular vote in their state. I still vote but often it is a protest vote since ultimately, it's a tally on sheet somewhere - not an actual vote from me. Which makes me wonder, if the Florida ballots had come-out differently than they did (or people think they did), is there a law that says the electoral college has to change their votes?

My brain hurts. This is why I failed Government (okay, I didn't really fail but I probably should have.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…