Here's my problem with the Democratic primaries

[PJMcK]

I live in New York. Our primary is at the end of April. Since the contest for the Democratic nomination will be over by then, we don't get to participate in selecting our party's nominee. Besides, many of us may have wanted to vote for one of the candidates who has dropped out. They may have found more support if we could participate.

This system isn't right. The primaries should all be on the same day, regardless of the logistics. Otherwise, huge blocks of voters are disenfranchised.

[beachbumbob]

1. its worked pretty good for nearly 250 years

[HarlanPepper]

2. We've become a grievance culture

[jberryhill]

7. And one that apparently doesn't have a good grasp of history

[HarlanPepper]

11. Sadly that is true.

And add civics to the list as evidenced by the people who think Sanders can create Medicare for all and wipe away their college debt with the stroke of a pen.

[jberryhill]

21. Or people who believe there have been party primaries for 250 years

....let alone popular election of president in the first place.

[wyldwolf]

33. what?? Abe Lincoln won the Alaska primary in 1860. FACT!11!!!

[PJMcK]

52. So what?

He lost American Samoa!

[wyldwolf]

56. hmm!

[LanternWaste]

39. And one that like to crow at the expense of others.

[PJMcK]

23. Isn't that what the internet is for?

Venting our spleens?!

Actually, the internet is also great for porn. From the musical Avenue Q:

Seriously, it just seems like an undemocratic waste if the contest for a nomination is so heavily front-loaded with mostly smaller states such that a great many others don't get to play, too.

[jberryhill]

5. Lol, funny

The best jokes are the ones that someone manages not to get.

On the off chance you were actually serious, then I would suggest you refrain from discussing history since it is obviously not your strong suit.

But I will assume you are joking.

[PJMcK]

8. That's rather simplistic

But if you like it, you got it.

[beachbumbob]

13. proof is in the pudding. If it doesn;lt work well why are people lined up to come to America?

[jberryhill]

17. Do you actually believe there have been party primary elections for 250 years?

Yes or no?

[beachbumbob]

24. didn't say that, I just imply our system whether now or years before seems to work ok

and those who vote "last" whether in a primary or a general always feel their vote didn;t matter. holding a nationwide primary is absolutely impossible on all levels just to placate some discontented voters

[PJMcK]

18. There are so many disconnected thoughts in your response

Are you suggesting that people want to immigrate to the United States so they can vote in Democratic primaries? Really?

You seemed satisfied with our political and party systems.

I'm not.

Have a nice day.

[Dem4Life1102]

16. Actually the primary system

only began in 1912.

[PJMcK]

20. Exactly

I was just looking that up! Thanks for saving me the time.

[jberryhill]

22. Most states didn't even have presidential elections until after 1820

...let alone primaries.

The majority of states' electors were simply chosen by the legislature. That began to change toward the middle of the 19th century.

People really didn't want to immigrate to the US until the Sarbanes-Oxley Act became an international sensation.

[PJMcK]

25. Ah, historical accuracy

How quaint!

I love your amended avatar, sir. But how will we know if the cow is still laughing?

[GemDigger]

3. I would call that lucky, I vote in June. nt

[honest.abe]

4. April 28 is probably the day Joe breaks the majority 1990+ delegates

New York
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Delaware

I am in Maryland so that's my voting day too and I will be thrilled to add my vote to help put Joe over the top!

[BidenBacker]

10. I just noticed that last night when I was looking at 538

If they're right, his native PA will claim they put Joe over the top and his adopted DE will do the same.

And now you MDers wanna claim that distinction, too!

[honest.abe]

14. Yep!! Joe's our homeboy too!

[ancianita]

6. Agree. All at once seems like the fairest way to conduct primaries. Off the top of my head ...

It eliminates so much that's wrong with media coverage, for one thing. It likely eliminates temptation by state players to have undue influence on the rest of the country.

[PJMcK]

12. It will shorten the length of campaigns

This could also be a manner to diminish the scale of the money needed for campaigns.

[ancianita]

26. Two great additions to my list. Thanks!

[thesquanderer]

40. All on one day? Only the richest and most well known would have a chance.

No way we'd have had an Obama. Or Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter.

[ancianita]

42. Well, then. We have to change campaign finance along with it, don't we.

Both are doable, especially with a two-house majority.

A lot of good election change can come from a two-house majority. But we have to demand it from the get-go, every time we get the chance. Not sit on our wins, but use them to get what we want while we can.

Otherwise, there's no point in even talking about this.

[LiberalFighter]

63. I would go for 6 regional primaries.

[ancianita]

67. That's one step forward. Until we can get campaign finance changed, sure. After that, a national

primary could still work. Then primaries would focus more on the merits of the issues, without costs of selling the candidates' positions and records entering into them.

[brush]

9. Agreed, have 'em all on the same day and be done with it.

[thesquanderer]

41. We'd never have had an Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter.

If you had to campaign everywhere right from the start, only the richest and most well known would have a chance.

[brush]

44. Sorry, it's already moving that way with states moving to Super Tuesday.

[stopdiggin]

47. if Super Tues was first

that would be somewhat valid. Sorry .. it's just a bad idea. Unless you're really a fan of politics awash in money, and mega media markets.
-- --

[PJMcK]

53. Yet you haven't answered my original complaint

The vast majority of people do not get a vote for either party's candidate.

You think that's reasonable.

I do not.

Peace.

[brush]

54. You really think it can be stopped? Another way to look at it is a much shorter campaign will cost..

considerably less. And if laws are passed for public funding it will lessen big money's influence even more. Any big structural change requires new rules, laws and adjustments.

Relax, it can be done. And btw, we're already awash in big money.

[left-of-center2012]

15. I'm in New Mexico, with a June primary n/t

[George II]

19. We don't vote until April 28. I'll vote, but I'm sure a lot of people won't bother.

[NNadir]

27. New Jersey here. I agree, emphatically. n/t.

[MicaelS]

28. Of course you realize that means a runoff day will have to occur.

I do not have a problem with that. Just saying.

[PJMcK]

34. Maybe

It would depend on the rules.

If the winner is the one who gets the most votes, then that's it.

If the winner has to amass more than 50% of the votes, then you're most likely correct. (Isn't that part of a Parliamentarian system?)

Of course, there could be a someone in a multiple candidate field who could still get more than a majority of votes.

[stopdiggin]

48. so both of you are doing away with the convention? delegates? (nt)

[PJMcK]

50. Well, hold on

In almost every incidence, the convention vote for the party's candidate is a foregone conclusion since the delegates are pledged to vote as their primaries dictated. Although I remain agnostic regarding our candidate, it is most likely going to be Biden. When the Democrats hold their convention, do you really expect any surprises?

Political conventions serve a purpose, of course. This is particularly true regarding the party's platform. But there really isn't any drama since the nomination of the candidate is known well before the convention vote is taken. Besides, the primaries dictate who the delegates will be.

Accordingly, I'm not really sure I understand your point.

[stopdiggin]

58. less than three weeks ago

a contested convention was considered almost a surety ...
So your assertion that "the nomination of the candidate is known well before the convention vote." .. is a little wobbly. (although I realize it hasn't actually happened all that often). And one of the above posts mentioned the necessity of a "run-off" primary to decide a clear winner. That sounds to me like something very close doing away with delegates .. and by extension, conventions.

Perhaps I'm the one that misunderstood .. but I think I had reason ...

[LiberalFighter]

68. And conventions are important in mobilizing support for the nominee.

[LiberalFighter]

66. I would not support most votes for primaries.

Right now the Republican primaries, when they hold them, have winner take all in the states. There might be some deviation in some states.

Democratic delegates are allocated to each state and congressional district based on Democratic voter turnout in the last 3 presidential elections. That means if there is a red state and blue state with nearly the same population they don't have the same number of delegates. Instead, the state with higher Democratic turnout has more delegates. That reduces rigging a state or district.

The same holds true delegates that are allocated based on results in a congressional district. All congressional districts have nearly the same population. But when the average of 3 presidential elections is used they don't all get the same number of delegates. It can be as low as 3 to as high as 9. Maybe 10 but don't remember. Michigan for example has 2 districts with 4 delegates, 5 with 5 delegates, 2 with 6 delegates, 4 with 7 delegates, and 1 with 9 delegates.

States also gain delegates that other states might not get because they have a Democratic governor or Democratic congressional members.

Congressional districts and states should consider this an incentive to work hard to elect Democrats. Doing so adds delegates to the convention.

[nolawarlock]

29. I agree

Our Louisiana primary isn't until April 4th (bless them for making it a Saturday), but it does feel like by that point it might not matter. But, more to the point, I think they should all be the same day so we don't have to bite our nails wondering for months. :-D

[PJMcK]

32. Do you have any nails left?

It's been a mighty interesting campaign so far!

[nolawarlock]

43. Barely! n/t

[LisaM]

30. Then how do you winnow the field?

I have lived in states with late primaries and sometimes they count and sometimes they don't, but that doesn't really matter that much to me. I like the primary season to be able to progress, because it's a good way to see the candidates out on the stump and see what they're all about.

If there was one early primary day, we wouldn't see anything unfold, and if the one-day primary was held later, a lot of candidates would have to drop out because of money.

[PJMcK]

31. I'm surprised by your first sentence

You wrote that it "doesn't really matter that much" if your vote counts!

The campaign season before a national primary date needn't change, except for maybe being shorter. But if I wanted to support and vote for, say, Elizabeth Warren, I'm deprived of that opportunity because of the primary voting schedule. Do you think that's fair and democratic?

My vote does matter that much to me.

Months ago, I was quite put off by a Sanders ad I saw where he asked a "small" favor: support his campaign. That is not a small request. In fact, it's the biggest favor a politician can ask of a voter! I'm still agnostic on our remaining candidates and guarantee I'll vote for one or the other come November!

If we had a single day of primary voting, as we do for the General Election, then the field would be winnowed quite quickly. If a candidate cannot raise the support-- in people and money-- during the primary campaign season, then they'd have to drop out before the primary ones are cast. It's still political Darwinism.

[LisaM]

45. Of course MY VOTE matters to me. We vote today, and I am disappointed

that I can't vote for Warren.

It doesn't matter to me if my state has more say than any other state. We're a large, blue state (Washington). But I actually think it's as, or even more, important that red state Dems get a say in picking the candidate, because otherwise they will completely lack representation.

[LiberalFighter]

69. They still count in determining the delegates that will go to the national.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

35. Welcome to our world (California).

For too many years California's primary was so late that by the time we got to vote the nominee was decided. Essentially our role had been reduced to "sugar daddy," where all the candidates appeared for fundraisers over and over again, while our votes didn't change the results. It was nice this year to go to the polls on Super Tuesday and know that my vote mattered.

[PJMcK]

38. Lucky!

Think about it: California is a huge state in area, population and economy. And for years, your primary votes were irrelevant.

It doesn't seem very democratic.

[wyldwolf]

36. Oh, I'm sure Sanders will now push for this..

.. his MO is to try and change rules when the previous outcome didn't favor him.

[PJMcK]

37. Hah!

I hadn't thought of that!

[BidenBacker]

46. For reasons stated by others here

no way would I favor having one huge primary day. But I'd be all for lumping the first 4 states together and having them all vote on the first day of the primaries.

Not sure what's up with this year's schedule. There's a primary on April 7th and then nothing at all for the next 3 weeks. If Bernie doesn't drop out after Wisconsin and end this thing then we're gonna have 3 full weeks of the candidates attacking each other when it seems to me that it woulda been better to have held some more contests during this period and let the voters help decide.

The sooner Democrats pick a nominee the sooner we can turn our full attention to the Imbecile-in-Chief, rather than spending yet more money tearing each other down.

[LiberalFighter]

70. Except for caucuses the dates for primaries are determined by states.

You would think by now that states would have come up with having their primaries on the same day. But not the case.

In fact there are states, at least one, that have more than just a presidential primary and general election.

[BidenBacker]

74. Good point, LF

But I gotta believe that the national DNC can sit all the Dem leaders down from all the states in a big powwow and hammer out some kinda agreement for a coordinated primary system.

This kinda shit is what got us into so much trouble when we were trying to function as a viable nation under the Articles of Confederation...LOL.

[stopdiggin]

49. So .. you have no interest at all in hearing from

candidates like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Yang, Booker, Harris ...

Because you are NOT going to. Simple as that.

[PJMcK]

51. What are you talking about?

My point in the OP was exactly the opposite of your response. I wanted to hear from the other candidates and have an opportunity to vote for one of them.

Because of the drawn-out primary process, far too many voters do not get the chance to vote for their candidate if they live in a late-voting state.

Imagine if Buttigieg or Warren were on the ballot if everyone voted together! Do you think they would have had to drop out? Or would they have perhaps garnered enough votes to continue to the convention?

Upthread, someone pointed out that if the primaries were held on single day, that we'd have to have a run-off. Actually, we wouldn't. Let the candidates come to the convention with their votes and see what happens. Let the convention be the run-off. That would be something to watch and it would focus the party and its platform unlike anything we've seen before.

[stopdiggin]

62. how do you imagine

Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar competing in a mass media market like NY? We'd never even hear their names. It's a Bloomberg, Biden contest. Period.

[Clash City Rocker]

55. Why not change the order every election?

It really doesn’t make sense for Iowa and New Hampshire to have so much power, but if all the primaries happened in the same day, there would be a lot of contested conventions. Why not just rotate the order of the primaries?

[LiberalFighter]

71. Because the DNC does not decide when primaries are held.

At best they can do is manage the caucuses. At least what is left of them.

The state legislators decide when primaries are held.

[brooklynite]

57. A national Primary would severely limit both the candidates and campaigns...

It would favor candidates with high name recognition and sufficient cash to pay for extensive TV advertising (think: Bloomberg); it would take away the need for candidates to show an ability to engage in face to face campaigning and eliminate opportunities for lesser known figures to catch fire with voters.

[PJMcK]

59. And yet you and I will have no say in the candidate

As I wrote upthread, I'm still agnostic on our candidate. But by the time you and I and other New Yorkers get to vote, we probably won't have a choice since one gentleman will have locked up the race by then.

How is that representative or fair?

Another thought: those who dropped out didn't do so because of money or name recognition. Bloomberg has plenty of cash to burn. Few people had heard of Buttigieg, Klobuchar or even what's-her-name Tulsi. Yet they all got plenty of national coverage with very little support.

[brooklynite]

65. Sorry, but I disagree...

Unless you believe that Biden will have a majority of delegates by April, your vote will have the same impact as it would if you had voted in February. If what you mean is that we'll "know" who the nominee will be and won't have an opportunity to change the dynamics of the race, well, tough. Unlike Lake Wobegon, we can't have a system where every State has a political influence that's above average.

[karynnj]

60. The calendar is not always the same

In 2008, NY was on the first superTuesday that ended up with Obama and Clinton very close - though it had been expected to be the "wall" that stopped anyone except Clinton.

[LiberalFighter]

61. That is an issue to take up with your state's legislators.

The federal government does not have a say in when primaries are held.

[Vivienne235729]

64. I absolutely agree. The way it stands, some state's votes are more influential than others

And it shouldn't be that way. It should all be on 1 day. Everyone should have equal say.

[BidenBacker]

73. That would probably result in utter chaos

Imagine if we had done that this year with +20 candidates in the field. Even if some of them had been whittled down before we got to the big Primary Day because they ran outta money (a highly non-democratic process without a single vote being cast, I might add) we woulda still had around 10 candidates this year. So some get a few %, others might get 10 or 15%, and maybe a couple or a few get 20%.

Then what? They go to the convention and all hell breaks loose. The convention would probably last longer than the normal primary season as they all squabbled over delegates with nobody even close to the majority!

My Dad's parents came from northern Italy. From the pictures I've seen of the Alps in that region it's beautiful there...but I have no desire to adopt the Italian political system. They've had a whopping 69 governments since WW2 and that was of last year!

[Vivienne235729]

76. Well, we couldn't do it as it stands. We would have to have qualifying rounds still.

Or maybe have the order based on voter turnout of the previous election. Maybe that would motivate some people to get out and vote and reward them for it.

[BidenBacker]

77. Hell, Viv

Now you're talking multiple national elections spread out over several months. That cost bucks and states are strapped as it is. That's why some still have those idiotic caucuses...they're cheaper. And why other states with primaries have consolidated polling stations and cut back on staffing which only resulted in ridiculously long lines and other headaches.

I can see it now if we went with just one big Primary Day as the OP suggested...

Federal Election Commission (poking their heads into the DNC convention): "Hey, you clowns pick a nominee yet? You've been at this for almost 4 months now."

DNC: "No, and we're not even close."

FEC: "Well, it's November 3rd...Election Day. So I guess Trump wins by forfeit."

[Vivienne235729]

80. No shit. I came up w that on the fly. Feel free to come up w solutions as well.

But it doesn't take away the fact that as the system stands, it is kind of unfair for subsequent states to have less of a voice. What do YOU suggest?

[LizBeth]

72. Mine is May.

[Amaryllis]

75. Same in OR, only we have vastly fewer delegates than NY.

[eilen]

78. Ok, here is my fantasy primary season

There is a Kick-Off convention where of the candidates filed their petitions, submit to their psychological evaluations, provide results of their physicals & tax records to the Party Board for yea or nay irt eligibility to represent/suit for office approval. They take turns on the stage with their first speech announcing and we have a big party. During that time they can meet and plan fundraising, interview campaign organizers, etc.

The nation is divided into 6 regions. Two months is spent in a region campaigning-- town halls, pancake breakfasts, rallies, etc. These can be televised and broadcast on public broadcast channels. There is a debate and a roundtable at the end of those 2 months-- hosted by a local organization or any partnership of organizations like League of Women Voters and the Rotary Club or 40 Below and the local University and the local VOICE chapter...etc. Then they move to the next region for two months and do it again. At the end of 12 months a nationwide primary is held after a two week grace period where the newschannels can broadcast campaign highlights and review the platforms and people who want to, can mail in ballots early. The newsmedia circus follows it all. It gives candidates time to return to their jobs for important votes if they are office holders in the Congress or States between events.
After the primary there is a big Convention and announcement of running mate as per the usual.

[PJMcK]

79. That's quite brilliant

You answered every critique of my suggestion.

The damned campaigns go on for too long. Your plan actually accelerates the nominating process.

If only...

[eilen]

82. Thanks!

It is still a year long but I think with the opener-- gins up excitement and the tour through the regions generates... well, regional excitement but also gives the rest of the nation a good view of the people there and I think, promotes unity--with the media attention and the local issues are aired. Plus it gives the hardcore fans that like to follow their candidate around a good travelogue. And the Convention at the end is a big party and time for everyone to come together. Instituting run-off voting also prevents a brokered convention. However, I think the process at the beginning gives the party control over who runs under its banner so as to prevent a Trump...

[alarimer]

81. I'm voting for Warren regardless.

It’s a protest, quixotic maybe. The system is stupid. And undemocratic. The powers that be would prefer the candidate be chose by “party elites”, and not by us.At the very least, the calendar and which states go when should be randomly chosen or rotate every time.

[PJMcK]

83. I share your frustration

It's the reason I wrote my OP.

In the end, we have to vote for the Democratic candidate and make certain Trump is removed from the White House. Additionally, we need to remove Republicans at every level of government: Federal, State and Local.