Full Version: Presidential Primary
Kept my 27 year string alive yesterday by participating in one of our most cherished liberties: voting.
Other than being disappointed by the low voter turn out (I was the only one voting at 5:30pm at a church where 2 precincts vote), I was once again reminded of what I consider a huge short coming in our primary Presidential election process: by the time our state (and other states as well) votes, the Iowa caucus and other states who have already held their primaries have filtered out potentially viable candidates.
Although my candidate of choice, Edwards, was still on the ballot, he effectively removed himself from the election almost two months ago. My knee-slap reaction is and always has been: “this isn’t very Democratic, we the voters had no realistic say in the choice of our Presidential candidate.”
As usual, I spent the evening with my father at a post election pow-wow watching the results come in and discussing the state of the election with seasoned politicians. The general consensus was: Now that the weaknesses of Kerry have surfaced, Edwards is looking like a much stronger candidate. But, it’s too late in the game now.
Questions for debate:
Is this really a fair and Democratic process?
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
What are the alternatives?
Other than being disappointed by the low voter turn out (I was the only one voting at 5:30pm at a church where 2 precincts vote), I was once again reminded of what I consider a huge short coming in our primary Presidential election process: by the time our state (and other states as well) votes, the Iowa caucus and other states who have already held their primaries have filtered out potentially viable candidates.
Although my candidate of choice, Edwards, was still on the ballot, he effectively removed himself from the election almost two months ago. My knee-slap reaction is and always has been: “this isn’t very Democratic, we the voters had no realistic say in the choice of our Presidential candidate.”
As usual, I spent the evening with my father at a post election pow-wow watching the results come in and discussing the state of the election with seasoned politicians. The general consensus was: Now that the weaknesses of Kerry have surfaced, Edwards is looking like a much stronger candidate. But, it’s too late in the game now.
Questions for debate:
Is this really a fair and Democratic process?
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
What are the alternatives?
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ May 19 2004, 10:30 AM)
Questions for debate:
Is this really a fair and Democratic process?
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
What are the alternatives?
No, it's not a very democratic process.
I believe we should change primaries and the general elctions as well.
Alternative #1:I wonder if it would be possible to hold the primary on the same day 'round the country -- like the general election? This seems like a better way to ensure a more democratic candidate--
Alternative #2: I also think that ranked preference voting or Instant runoff voting might make a difference in the primaries.
Here's the link:
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
It might keep candidates in the running much longer knowing that they might be second choice in many IRV scenarios.
As a Green, I'd certainly like to see IRV used in the General election as well -- it allows people to vote their conscience without "spoiling".
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ May 19 2004, 09:30 AM)
Is this really a fair and Democratic process?
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
What are the alternatives?
Is this really a fair and Democratic process?
I agree. Living in Oregon, the primary election, (which took place yesterday) was little more than a waste of time. If there were not local races on the ballot, I would have had little incentive to cast my vote. Why can't all primaries occur on the same day?
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
YES
What are the alternatives?
Well another thing to point out is that in most states, one must be a democrat to vote in the primary election for a dem. candidate, and a republican to vote for a rep. candidate. I am 100% american and neither democrat or republican. I would like to cast my vote for the Dem. Candidate of my choice, and the Rep. candidate of my choice. I want the very best person from both parties competing in November, but I am not allowed to vote this way.
The US election process demands that we take sides far before the actual election. That needs to be changed.
I forgot to post the benefits of IRV in my last post:
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
Here's answering the question in regards to primaries:
That same site also has some other voting methods which might be applicable to the debate question:
From another site:
http://www.ghg.net/redflame/irv.htm
This site mentions that primaries can merge with the general election -- another interesting idea:
http://accuratedemocracy.com/c_irv.htm
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
Here's answering the question in regards to primaries:
QUOTE
D) Its results are better. Standard runoffs usually eliminate all but the top two candidates right after the first round. On the other hand, IRV eliminates only the candidate with the current lowest vote count each round (and thus can take several rounds). This makes IRV superior for races in which there are more than three serious candidates, as is often the case in party primaries.
QUOTE
The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. (hence, the motto, "it's as easy as 1-2-3."). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote.
snip
**When there are more than 2 candidates, it ensures the winner has a majority. Without IRV, the winner can win with less than 50% of the vote. How do we really know they have a mandate?
**It will allow more candidates, including independents and third-parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of "spoiling" the elections. Even if your favorite candidate comes in last, at least IRV allows your next favorite candidate to be counted. No more wasting your vote, and no more spoilers.
**It will decrease negative campaigning. To win, candidates need to get some 2nd and 3rd place votes, as well as 1st place votes. They'll be less likely to "go negative" if they need their opponent's voters, too.
**IRV saves money. Some states and local elections hold runoffs weeks later to pick the winner. IRV holds the runoff all in one election--saving money.
snip
**When there are more than 2 candidates, it ensures the winner has a majority. Without IRV, the winner can win with less than 50% of the vote. How do we really know they have a mandate?
**It will allow more candidates, including independents and third-parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of "spoiling" the elections. Even if your favorite candidate comes in last, at least IRV allows your next favorite candidate to be counted. No more wasting your vote, and no more spoilers.
**It will decrease negative campaigning. To win, candidates need to get some 2nd and 3rd place votes, as well as 1st place votes. They'll be less likely to "go negative" if they need their opponent's voters, too.
**IRV saves money. Some states and local elections hold runoffs weeks later to pick the winner. IRV holds the runoff all in one election--saving money.
That same site also has some other voting methods which might be applicable to the debate question:
QUOTE
Are there other voting methods like IRV?
Yes, there are several other methods:
Condorcet - this system measures which candidate has the broadest support. It compares each candidate pair-wise with each other candidate.
Borda Count - this is similar to how college football teams are ranked. A first place vote is worth 4 points, a 2nd is worth 3 points, a 3rd 2 points and a 4th is worth 1 point. The candidate receiving the most points wins.
Approval Voting - each voter votes for as many candidates as they like. The candidate with the most votes (plurality) wins. Approval voting only measures whether a candidate is acceptable to the voter; it does not distinguish between a candidate who is intensely liked and those who are more weakly approved of.
Cumulative voting - this system was used in Illinois for 110 years until 1982 to elect Illinois House of Representatives. Voters had three votes to give to three candidates and could distribute the votes any way they wished - all to one candidate, one each, or two and one. There is a push now to revive it. See the Drive to Revive Cumulative Voting.
Yes, there are several other methods:
Condorcet - this system measures which candidate has the broadest support. It compares each candidate pair-wise with each other candidate.
Borda Count - this is similar to how college football teams are ranked. A first place vote is worth 4 points, a 2nd is worth 3 points, a 3rd 2 points and a 4th is worth 1 point. The candidate receiving the most points wins.
Approval Voting - each voter votes for as many candidates as they like. The candidate with the most votes (plurality) wins. Approval voting only measures whether a candidate is acceptable to the voter; it does not distinguish between a candidate who is intensely liked and those who are more weakly approved of.
Cumulative voting - this system was used in Illinois for 110 years until 1982 to elect Illinois House of Representatives. Voters had three votes to give to three candidates and could distribute the votes any way they wished - all to one candidate, one each, or two and one. There is a push now to revive it. See the Drive to Revive Cumulative Voting.
From another site:
http://www.ghg.net/redflame/irv.htm
QUOTE
There are other advantages to IRV as well, such as less sensitivity to campaign spending and more pressure on political parties to nominate centrists. As Polsby and Wildavsky (p. 115) lament regarding the dynamics of modern Presidential primaries,
Where once it was useful to be the second choice of 90% of all delegates, today first choices--even of as few as 30%--are far preferable.
With IRV, second choices are often decisive.
Where once it was useful to be the second choice of 90% of all delegates, today first choices--even of as few as 30%--are far preferable.
With IRV, second choices are often decisive.
This site mentions that primaries can merge with the general election -- another interesting idea:
http://accuratedemocracy.com/c_irv.htm
QUOTE
Moderate candidates get a better chance to win election. We too often see a far-right candidate lead a couple thousand zealous supporters to vote in a primary election, and so win the Republican nomination in a district that always elects that party's nominee. A mirror image may occur in districts controlled by the Democrats. IRV can reduce the chances of that by combining the primary with the general election, greatly increasing the number of Republican voters and independents who help select their party's representative.
Is this really a fair and Democratic process?
Its neither fair nor democratic. Kerry was the winner by a process of elimination, not a reflection of even a remote majority of the potential voters. As Fife already pointed out, I think over the long haul Edwards would have been more of a concensus pick, possibly even Dean over Kerry after seeing how he's performed thus far. Arguably the same could have happened for McCain in 2000.
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
Absolutely. The way it works now is broken.
What are the alternatives?
Jen's instant runoff is an excellent idea. Its kind of a hybrid of the caucus and primary systems. I also think it would be far more representative.
I would also like to seem some ability to hide the results or conceal them somehow. One of the things that seems to happen currently is huge momentum factors that eventually push candidates from the race. Either have all of the elections within a week or have some method of concealing the results to ensure every candidate gets a fair shake with all the potential electorates. Unfortunately I think that means that some of the smaller or more rural states may get left out of the process from a candidate exposure so I'm not sure what the best answer for this is.
Doc
Its neither fair nor democratic. Kerry was the winner by a process of elimination, not a reflection of even a remote majority of the potential voters. As Fife already pointed out, I think over the long haul Edwards would have been more of a concensus pick, possibly even Dean over Kerry after seeing how he's performed thus far. Arguably the same could have happened for McCain in 2000.
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
Absolutely. The way it works now is broken.
What are the alternatives?
Jen's instant runoff is an excellent idea. Its kind of a hybrid of the caucus and primary systems. I also think it would be far more representative.
I would also like to seem some ability to hide the results or conceal them somehow. One of the things that seems to happen currently is huge momentum factors that eventually push candidates from the race. Either have all of the elections within a week or have some method of concealing the results to ensure every candidate gets a fair shake with all the potential electorates. Unfortunately I think that means that some of the smaller or more rural states may get left out of the process from a candidate exposure so I'm not sure what the best answer for this is.
Doc
Is this really a fair and Democratic process?
Absolutely not. As Government Mule pointed out, unaffiliateds and independents get screwed in our current process.
I can’t seem to find what percentage of voters register something other than Democrat or Republican, but I would imagine it’s a fairly decent number of voters who are unable to even cast a vote in primaries. Why should we be penalized because we don’t want to be pigeon-holed into the 2-party stranglehold?
(Does anyone have a link to what organization tracks US voter registration by party?)
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
DEFINITELY.
What are the alternatives?
I had never heard of the Instant Runoff process, but it sounds elegantly simple (gotta love the Muppet example
!) and it is more representative of the people’s desires than the current system.
At the very least, they could hold all primaries within at least the same week, if not the same day. It might eliminate some of that political campaign hoo-hah that the candidates waste so much money on, too.
Absolutely not. As Government Mule pointed out, unaffiliateds and independents get screwed in our current process.
I can’t seem to find what percentage of voters register something other than Democrat or Republican, but I would imagine it’s a fairly decent number of voters who are unable to even cast a vote in primaries. Why should we be penalized because we don’t want to be pigeon-holed into the 2-party stranglehold?
(Does anyone have a link to what organization tracks US voter registration by party?)
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
DEFINITELY.
What are the alternatives?
I had never heard of the Instant Runoff process, but it sounds elegantly simple (gotta love the Muppet example
!) and it is more representative of the people’s desires than the current system.At the very least, they could hold all primaries within at least the same week, if not the same day. It might eliminate some of that political campaign hoo-hah that the candidates waste so much money on, too.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ May 19 2004, 11:30 AM)
Questions for debate:
Is this really a fair and Democratic process?
Should we change the way our Presidential primaries are held?
What are the alternatives?
I believe it is a fair and democratic process. You must keep in mind that by voting for Edwards, you are increasing his chances of possibly becoming the #2 man on the ticket. A presidential candidate who faces a strong primary challenge, will seriously consider adding his most potent enemy to his ticket to take on the opposition. Even if Edwards doesn't get tapped for that spot, you and other voters who support other candidates still have a say. Each candidate holds delegates and that could earn them a spot in a Kerry cabinet where a lot of their own personal views could be put to use, or to change the platform or strengthen an already existing one. A candidate's pet issue on labor or the economy could be better fulfilled through a cabinet position where they have their own little fiefdom to control. Could you imagine seeing a Ralph Nader in charge of the department of labor and all the things that he could do? Going green was a big mistake. A lot of these things aren't transparent, but they are important.
I would be in favor of changing the primary election dates. I believe that we should just have two days in which the eastern states vote, and then the western states. That way, you guarantee that a wider range of states is visited, and that other states won't be left out in the cold when the election is 99.9% wrapped up.
My state had a 21% voting turnout ratio, absolutely pitiful. I believe that if we held our primary sooner, rather than later, it would've been more important(hence my rumination on the above possibility.) I agree that it is rather disheartening, and is repeated all too often. We all should work within our own respective parties to make a two day voting process the law of the land.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ May 19 2004, 01:34 PM)
I can’t seem to find what percentage of voters register something other than Democrat or Republican, but I would imagine it’s a fairly decent number of voters who are unable to even cast a vote in primaries. Why should we be penalized because we don’t want to be pigeon-holed into the 2-party stranglehold?
(Does anyone have a link to what organization tracks US voter registration by party?)
I spent about 1/2 hour googling trying to find a link on US statistics. In that half hour I was only able to come up with state or local statistics, but they're kind of interesting.
Here's one for West Virginia:
http://www.wvsos.com/elections/history/reg...n/2004PriVR.htm
This shows that independents are 10.27% of the registered voters and "Other" is 1.12%.
If anyone else has a link to nationwide statistics on registered party affiliation, I'd like to see it as well.
I don't at all like the current system of determining the parties' nominee - allowing states to hold elections MONTHS apart is absolutely ludicrous to me. Okay, so the candidates don't get to go to every state on election day - big deal. I would like to think people would be more interested in having their votes mean something than having a candidate show up on that special day. I probably have some crazy ideas of how to make this work better, but it's got to be better than having a HUGE chunk of our population pretty much disenfranchised because their primaries are too late to matter.
Have ALL primaries on the same day. Election Day (the BIG one) isn't spread out across 3-4 months because it is just silly - and it's silly for the primaries, too. I don't really care what the reasons are behind it, it lends to a non-democratic voting process, period.
And jenreiautter, I've done quite a bit of research on IRV over the past maybe 18 months (the Muppet election site was one of the first ones I ever saw). I think it would be an ideal alternative for primaries (in which the voters mostly have the same core political goals). I think it would not be a good idea for the actual Presidential election (though it would be a way to defeat the two-party system) - not yet at any rate. I'm pretty darn sure Kerry wouldn't have been given the nod if we'd used IRV in the Democratic primaries - probably would've been Clark or Edwards as I don't know anyone who really had either of them at the bottom of their lists, though Kerry seemed to be either loved or hated).
And I think independents should have a say in primaries, though I'm not sure how that would be accomplished without defeating the purpose of party primaries...I don't know how to make that work without giving the Republicans a say in Democratic primaries and vice versa (which makes no sense to me at all - that's what the general election is for). I guess I would have to think about this a bit more and do some more research.
Have ALL primaries on the same day. Election Day (the BIG one) isn't spread out across 3-4 months because it is just silly - and it's silly for the primaries, too. I don't really care what the reasons are behind it, it lends to a non-democratic voting process, period.
And jenreiautter, I've done quite a bit of research on IRV over the past maybe 18 months (the Muppet election site was one of the first ones I ever saw). I think it would be an ideal alternative for primaries (in which the voters mostly have the same core political goals). I think it would not be a good idea for the actual Presidential election (though it would be a way to defeat the two-party system) - not yet at any rate. I'm pretty darn sure Kerry wouldn't have been given the nod if we'd used IRV in the Democratic primaries - probably would've been Clark or Edwards as I don't know anyone who really had either of them at the bottom of their lists, though Kerry seemed to be either loved or hated).
And I think independents should have a say in primaries, though I'm not sure how that would be accomplished without defeating the purpose of party primaries...I don't know how to make that work without giving the Republicans a say in Democratic primaries and vice versa (which makes no sense to me at all - that's what the general election is for). I guess I would have to think about this a bit more and do some more research.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ May 19 2004, 02:34 PM)
I can’t seem to find what percentage of voters register something other than Democrat or Republican, but I would imagine it’s a fairly decent number of voters who are unable to even cast a vote in primaries. Why should we be penalized because we don’t want to be pigeon-holed into the 2-party stranglehold?
I don't know Daffy, as a I die-hard democrat, I would be rather upset if non-democrats in an open primary could mess up the system in regards to who I want to be the party's nominee. McCain kind of did that to Bush during an open primary season. There is a plethora of third party candidates for president every year. It wouldn't be that hard to research them ahead of time and decide to switch one's affiliation. As an independent, you could get Nader on the ballot and vote for him. You could support the reform party candidate in your neck of the woods if it's still a viable operation, or you could support the Libertarians. The point? There isn't a shortage of third party candidates for president. I don't believe that they are getting cheated out of coverage or anything like that. Rather, I believe that most of them are just too far "out there" for the vast majority of people.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.