Is this primary season really different? Re: Late states getting a voice

[WilliamPitt]

There has been a great hue and cry here about voters in later primary states not getting a chance to voice their choice in this race. I am one of the voters who has had to watch the process unfold without getting a chance to play a part: I don't get to cast my Kucinich vote in Massachusetts until March 2nd.

But I do not remember recent past primary seasons being any different than this. Late states have been left out of the game for decades now. Remember last time? Gore had it in the bag before Super Tuesday. Hell, Bradley was toast after Iowa - remember the farmer who blasted him?

The primaries this year are front-loaded, true. But the crowded field coupled with the crowded calendar has given states like North Dakota and Oklahoma and Maine a chance to swing some weight in a way they didn't last time, or the time before.

If it were up to me, I would do two things:

1) Have all the states hold their primaries/caucuses on the same day;

2) Make Primary Voting Day and General Election Voting Day a secular holiday - no work, no school, just voting.

But since I'm not going to get the chance to do that anytime soon, I am left with the sense that the late-state frustrations are not unique to this season. Is my impression wrong?

[Hoosier Democrat]

1. In Indiana, my vote has NEVER mattered...

Be it the general election or the primary, Indiana is a presidential politics wilderness.

In the fall, we're the first or second state to light up RED on election night (last time I think Kentucky beat us).

Our primary is always the first Tuesday in May. Needless to say, both the Dems and the Pubs get shut out in the nomination process. The last time the Indiana Republican Primary mattered in a presidential race was 1976. For the Democrats, you have to go back to 1968.

[Caution]

2. I would agree

and on the general election I would go further and make it both a right and a DUTY to vote. Citizens should be required to vote. IF they like they can write in a protest candidate or vote for "No one" but they should at least actually cast a vote.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. I like your "No one" vote idea

But I still don't like the idea of forcing everyone to vote.

[diamondsoul]

12. Agreed.

Not voting is as much a statement as voting is.

I kind of like Will's idea, make voting day a total holiday, both Primary and GE voting days. Give people an incentive to make their voices heard. Force won't do it, but enough encouragement will.

[madfloridian]

3. Read this.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020121&s=nichols

Maybe the realization is more this time because more people are really involved. They, like me, are realizing how very little how votes mean at all.

[MuseRider]

4. Yes, Will.

I agree with your two ideas. It is no wonder that people feel like their vote doesn't matter because so many of them apparently do not in the primaries. It is also no wonder that they do not vote given the hassle for so many who have to travel to work and really have to stress to get to their polling place. We get days off to celebrate all manner of things because they are important, why not voting day? Perhaps public perception would change a bit if they got the day off because it was considered important.

[King of New Orleans]

5. I you go back and look at 1988 and 1992

You'll see that more states actually voted within a month of Iowa than have voted this year.

It's also been suggested that battleground states, or states that were close in the last election should be early in the voting. Well, Iowa, NH, Arizona, New MExico, Missouri and even ARizona were close last election and they've all voted early.


It's mainly the effect of Kerry being so dominate in the primaries up to this point that creates the idea that it's so front loaded.

Note--you can make an argument that the primaries are very mid-loaded. After March 2 and March 9th, there just aren't very many delegates to be chosen anywhere.

[VelmaD]

6. Sadly no

I don't get to cast my Kucinich vote until a week after you do. As a life-long Texan I've always been disappointed because the nomination was already sewn up before my primary. *big sigh* I live in one of the 3 largest states in the nation and my primary vote has not once really mattered in the grand sceme of things.

I totally agree that primary day and the general election should both be holidays. I'm starting to lean toward thinking all the primaries should be on the same day as well. The more I think about it the more I like the idea though I still have some reservations about what it would do in terms of the candidates actually visiting most of the country prior to the primary.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Popular misconception

Primaries are merely a way for a political party to allow its members to decide who will receive their support in the real election. No one who loses in the primary is denied the right to run in the full election - they must simply do so without the blessing of their party. If your favorite candidate does not win or drops out believing he cannot win, you are more than within your rights to urge him or her to run as an independant. You can scream that it is an undemocratic practice that would force a candidate out of the primary before every American has had the opportunity to vote for him, but you would incorrect in doing so, as the Primary is an entirely arbitrary system to begin with, as it does little to officially eliminate candidates and does not even have a homogenous method of election throughout the country.

[JackRiddler]

9. Oh really?

You can run as an independent... and get all that fair media coverage and free TV time, right?

You can run as an independent... and get attacked by your former party for ruining theirs.

You can run as an independent... and get up to .5% of the vote in an average year.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. If you don't like those stats

Change em. Or get your party to change its process of selecting a candidate. That's the system. Live with it or start working to change it (and I know I for one would love to change the whole thing.)

[JackRiddler]

19. It is impossible to change

It is fixed. It is corrupt. There is a collusion at the top, shielded by many layers of lies in the media. The main reins of power and wealth are held by a few thousand, well-networked wealthy people who wage class war on the rest. As long as this sounds obscure to the majority, nothing will change.

The party duopoly has too many weapons:

- the big money supports the duopoly, finding all of its interests represented within its limited spectrum.

- the finance system was made by the duopoly.

- the cartelized media cover and legitimate only the duopoly.

- the winner-take-all system means third party votes are a waste. (How can a third party ever reach the minimum of 20 or 30 percent that would make the majority consider it a potential winner?)

- the realist (status quo) mindset says, must take the lesser of two evils or else we get a Bush.

We are at the point where the majority think both parties are a joke but it's not even reported. Alternative viewpoints do not get the legitimacy of widespread disemination, so cynicism comes to dominate ("oh, god, not more politics!")

And come off your high horse. I am working inside the system right now. These issues are viewed as irrelevant by the majority of activists, not because they disagree, but because they see no way of changing it either.

Change may come when both parties are exposed, naked, as the tools of the same set of corporate interests. And that will (might) follow as the result of organizing - but apparently only after disaster discredits the present system, an inevitability that may nevertheless take many years.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. I'm not sure...

what your rant has to do with my suggestion of getting the party to change its method of holding primaries, which is a very attainable goal if you desire to join with like minded individuals. There appear to be plenty on DU who would join you (myself included). Instead of sitting back and seeing all the problems ahead, you don't bother to take a look at what's possible. That's not me being on a high horse - that's you not being on a horse at all.

[JackRiddler]

25. Okay, let's join

Tell me what you think of this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=348816&mesg_id=348816

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. I like it (nt)

[JackRiddler]

10. All states at once?

Counter-example: 1984 came down to NY in May, I believe.

And 1968 ended in June with California and the gunshot.

Under your idea, how could anyone ever have a chance to develop against a better-funded power? The media would decide entirely who was allowed to exist (more or less as they do today, but even worse). Based on name recognition, Lieberman might have come out on top. I don't think anything would change for the better.

What do you think of free media time divided fairly among candidates?

A campaign channel required on all cable/sat networks?

Public financing? At least the Gore plan of 2000?

Proportional representation?

Or at least instant run-off voting?

I know you're ABB, but as a true democrat and republican, don't you hope one day to see the end of the two-party duopoly and a chance for progressive politics to arise in this country?

[diamondsoul]

14. "all States?"

Ok how about this, split the country into thirds. Primaries occur over the course of three days with the results not being disclosed until the third Primary takes place.

Combine that with your equal coverage suggestions and we might actually change the way our elections happen.

[NoPasaran]

11. 1972?

As my admittedly hazy memories go, 1972 wasn't really decided until the California primary which I seem to recall was in June. And even then there was a credentials fight at the convention.

[WilliamPitt]

13. 30 years ago

[JasonBerry]

17. 30 Years Ago

But the principle is still the same. The only change is front loading. I know 1972 was before you were born (aren't you in your twenties?), but it isn't all that long ago. A national primary would be a disaster for anybody who doesn't have tons of money. The current system still *allows* for retail politics and the advance of a CREDIBLE out-funded candidate. 1972, is actually a very good example. As is 1976. Jimmy Carter would have stayed "Jimmy Who" in a national primary.

[King of New Orleans]

15. How could a national primary possible work?

It would seem to be collossally expensive and/or it would almost certainly lead to favorite son/brokered conventions. I could easily imagine a national primary where 10 candidates win states . It'd be unlikely that any candidate could get above 25% nationally. What do you do then?

I can't imagine how a national primary day would be anything but chaos.

[The Magistrate]

16. No, Mr. Pitt, It Is No Different

Probably one of the practical reasons the system has evolved into its current shape is that leading off with smaller states lets candidates enter the race and hope to make some mark with smaller budgets, because of the lower costs of attempting to move small markets. Altering it might well act to the favor of more established politicos than otherwise.

A suggestion that seems interesting to me would project a series of primaries organized by time zone, in which there would be four days of voting, set several weeks apart, in which all states in each of the nation's time zones would participate: Eastern voting one day, Central another, and so on. It could be made a bit more wicked by having the order determined by lot, and one at a time, so that several weeks before the first voting day, which time zone would be first could be selected, and then at the close of polls that day, the next selected, but with which of the two remaining would be the third and fourth being left open to a further draw. Alaska and Hawaii would be lumped into the Pacific zone.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MaineDem]

22. I like the idea of the time zone regional primary

My first thought is that the smaller states will be overlooked in favor of the delegate-rich ones. But that happens now.

My seconds thoughts concern the amount of time it takes for a candidate to get a message out. There has to be a mechanism in place for all the candidates to get "known" otherwise, in the first round of primaries, the candidate(s) with name recognition could have an advantage. Then again, is this much different than what we now have?

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately. I'm waiting for the perfect answer to pop into my brain in one of those light-bulb moments. No luck so far.

But your ideas have merit, for sure. Thanks.

[LWolf]

20. I don't know.

This is the first time I've ever voted for a primary candidate, so I can't compare. But I've certainly heard voters complain about this before.

Good suggestions. Why not make it up to WRP?

[Dookus]

21. You're right about the primaries

being not much different now than in the past. I'm a Californian, and I never get to have much of an impact with my vote. But it beats living in Dubuque.

I disagree with having the primaries all on one day. The current system forces candidates to really get out and connect with voters. A national primary would result in candidates only going to NY and California, and run the campaign entirely on TV ads.

This would heavily favor rich candidates, and deny up-and-comers any shot at all. In fact, a candidate like Kucinich would be hurt the most. Jimmy Carter was able to fight his way up the ladder - he would've been creamed in a national one-day primary.

As for the holiday idea, I've always thought the election should be run over two days: The first Saturday and Sunday in November.

[LuLu550]

23. As a New Yorker, I had high hopes

that an earlier primary in my state would mean my vote would help choose the candidate. I am bummed that it didn't matter that we are voting earlier...the same thing happened this year that always happens...the early states picked the candidate.

[DemBones DemBones]

26. All primaries on one day is a TERRIBLE idea!

Unless all the candidates could afford to actively campaign in each of the 50 states for a week or more, which would mean a full year of campaigning (two weeks off, which is all many Americans get off each year (but they don't spend the other fifty weeks away from home, traveling to several cities on most days.) And who would run under those circumstances?

Making all election and primary days holidays is a good idea, of course, but businesses would complain loudly -- and people would bitch about a holiday with the bars closed. (Are the bars still closed everywhere on election day?)
It should still be done, though, but I wouldn't count on it increasing turnout much. A lot of people just don't vote because they figure it doesn't matter, and won't vote unless they decide it does matter.

It's always frustrating not getting to vote until late in the primary season, but I'll be voting for Dennis on March 2, too. (Tell him that for me, Will, please!)

The upside of voting later is seeing more of how the candidates "wear" during the season, how they deal with victory or defeat in the earlier primary states, whether they stay true to their original message, whether any scandals erupt (or whether the opposition party tries to smear them with a bogus one, as we have just seen them try with Kerry.) It matters how a person handles a revelation of something that they'd hoped wouldn't be revealed or how they handle an attempted smear.

[JackRiddler]

29. huh? The bars are closed on election day?

I don't recall that. Of course, I don't recall much, since I do manage to get very, very drunk. On that day, of all days!

[Snivi Yllom]

28. yes it is different

The primary season was front loaded big time this year.

You are wrong.