The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Big Mo and the Order in Which Primaries, Caucuses Fall

Re: Big Mo and the Order in Which Primaries, Caucuses Fall

Parableman — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:56:19 -0000

That's it. Throw out voting altogether! Primaries are meaningless when campaigns are supposed to win them.

Pyronite, you seem to be working from a completely different understanding of Sean's argument from what I thought he was saying. I saw nothing about ignoring voting. What I saw was an observation that he'd been doing very well in the polls in those states all along, so it was no surprise that he did well in those states. If the voting had occurred at a different time, the votes would have gone the same way in those states. On the other hand, the polls in other states would have favored Hillary had they happened at other times. Thus the order of the primaries significantly affected who won in those states. Where in there is any suggestion that we stop having people vote in primaries? That's neither an assumption of the argument nor its conclusion. You're just making it up and pretending he thinks something remotely like that.

Re: Big Mo and the Order in Which Primaries, Caucuses Fall

pacatrue — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:56:32 -0000

Points in the article are well taken. At the same time, putting every primary on one day has its drawback as well. Essentially it favors the famous name and the extremely well-heeled. A national election requires millions upon millions being spent all across the country at once, which rules out people spending far less on just the first 5 states or so to gain name recognition. So drawbacks either way.

The best solution I've had so far is to rotate the primaries. Create about 10 regions with 5 states each, and you can cyle through them every 5 elections or so for who leads. It's not ideal either, but it's maybe a bit better. I'd also be open to moving to all primaries.

Re: Big Mo and the Order in Which Primaries, Caucuses Fall

Slamfu — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:39:37 -0000

I think most reasonable people at this point see the primaries process for the fiasco it is. Lets say we'd like them to do something different like have them all on the same day, who do I talk to about that. I'll file complaints all day long. We need to be spreading information on how to get the politicians to listen to us, who to talk to, who to get with, to make some changes and then start doing something with that info. Otherwise this is just a big circlejerk.

Re: Big Mo and the Order in Which Primaries, Caucuses Fall

pyronite — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:47:08 -0000

I love Sean's argument.

"But Maryland, DC, Virginia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Hawai’i, Maine, Washington and Nebraska were all races that he was supposed to win — and by large margins at that."

That's it. Throw out voting altogether! Primaries are meaningless when campaigns are supposed to win them.

Re: Big Mo and the Order in Which Primaries, Caucuses Fall

Amanda — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:52:00 -0000

Maybe a variation on a national caucus would be a better method. Have all the states participate within a given month (say May of the election year) and only candidates who pick up at least 25-30% of the vote overall can move on to a national Primary in July that determines the nominee for each party. Scrap delegates and apportionment - just count the votes.

Re: Big Mo and the Order in Which Primaries, Caucuses Fall

superdestroyer — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:04:28 -0000

Image what is going to happen after the Republican party completes its collapse and the Democratic primary is the real presidential election. A few states will be determining who the president is and the order of the primaries will determine the winner.