General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCalifornia Assembly approves presidential primary in March
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) The California Assembly has voted to move the 2020 presidential primary to March to give the nations most populous state more influence in choosing nominees.
The bill approved Friday will now go to the state Senate where its expected to pass. Gov. Jerry Brown has not said whether hell sign it.
The bill would move the presidential primary to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March three months earlier than the June contest held in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were already the presumptive nominees.
http://kron4.com/ap/california-assembly-approves-presidential-primary-in-march/
BigmanPigman
(51,582 posts)My family will be grateful too, for the bill passing and for me not bitching about it anymore.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's no good reason for any state's primary or caucus to be scheduled so late in the cycle that the voters of that state have no real say in the nominating process.
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)C Moon
(12,212 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)duh
C Moon
(12,212 posts)greeny2323
(590 posts)Retrograde
(10,132 posts)and mail-in ballots are available to anyone on request - and anyone can sign up to be a permanent mail-in voter.
I've heard the arguments for weekend voting. I don't think changing the day will make a difference in a state that makes it easier to vote than most - the people who don't bother to vote anyway will complain that Saturday is the only day they can spend with their families etc. Besides, there are religions that consider Saturday the Sabbath and limit their activities.
jalan48
(13,852 posts)dalton99a
(81,426 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)oasis
(49,365 posts)Response to RandySF (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... from the viable candidates much earlier in the process. Still need to eliminate the caucuses. With luck that will come too.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)They're gone, and good riddance to them.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)MineralMan
(146,281 posts)after the election, and it was signed by the Governor. We will have primary elections for Presidential candidates, as we do for all other offices hereafter. Caucuses simply sample too small a percentage of voters to convey the wishes of the people of Minnesota.
While I enjoyed the caucus system, personally, I was always skeptical of its fairness, since so few people show up. It makes it all too easy for a dedicated contingent that supports a particular candidate to dominate the caucus vote.
I'll miss the activity, but not the method.
ismnotwasm
(41,971 posts)Now If Washington state would do the same
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)in Minnesota was made on a bi-partisan basis. I found that very interesting. Clearly, it was seen that the caucus system produced an erroneous opinion for both parties in 2016.
It was time for it to be replaced with a more accurate way to measure voter sentiment.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)means candidates without heavy financial backing out the gate might not be viable at all because this certainly won't be a shake hands and ring doorbells campaign. You see the good of that, while I'm suddenly more cynical. That said, I would rather California actually have some influence over who our candidates are, and hopefully, in-spite of my reservations, this still opens the door for more progressive candidates who can attempt to appeal to voters who sympathetic to their message.
Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)so it was up to the state Democratic party organization to fundraise and pay for any participation in the primary process, with caucuses being the least expensive option. Even caucuses cost the party over $50K in funds (the schools and facilities have a low cost, but you need one for every 2-6 precincts, and hold county conventions and they have a fixed cost of the janitorial and cleanup fee).
To be clear, the DNC does not provide or offer even one thin dime toward our primary process (in our case caucuses) and IN FACT, insists on getting any money raised above the $50K sent to the DNC, even if it's only a penny even though the CO Dems could use any funds we can get.
But there was a ballot initiative to bring back primary election (which passed by a good margin).
I haven't followed up to see how the state is going to pay for the primary next time in 2020 -- but I do know it was originally a fiscal Repuke Secretary of State that removed primaries from the state's election budget -- to save money and that NEITHER party liked that.
The Republican party didn't even hold a real caucus in Colorado last time. Repuke party insiders felt that there was overwhelming support for Ted Cruz (ugh) and the state party insiders wanted Trump to win the caucus, so they just didn't schedule a caucus and GAVE Trump the votes (double ugh) through a county convention process where the fix was in. To this day, most of our Republican acquaintances are still #neverTrump even though they're still Republicans for some unfathomable reason.
I can guarantee you before I even do my research, that the current Repuke SOS and Repuke held legislature seats are trying to find a way to get out of paying for the primary.
There is absolutely no way the State Dem party could follow the new law and pay for ballots and election in a real primary - - would need well over a million dollars, and I've heard some estimates of as high as $8 million. The DNC won't help us.
So I guess I wrote all that to provide background for this -- I really wish all the people who gripe so much about caucuses had the background knowledge state by state to understand how and why that is the process. It's easy to paint with a broad brush, but as local Dem here in the trenches, doing actual grunt work --- we LITERALLY pass fucking buckets asking for dollars and checks -- I get a little tired of those ideological diatribes against caucuses -- when the process here is really dictated by funds and infrastructure (or lack thereof, not tradition or ideology or a marriage to some preference of primary process or type of debate or democratic representation).
That is just how I feel, but thanks for reading.
edited to add expensive county conventions included in process.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I wonder if there's anything to be gained (or costs saved) by duplicating the mail-in voting procedures that other states have. From what I remember, when it's 100% mail-in, the participation is much greater than average nationwide.
Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)same day voting and absentee voting. We really do have one of the most open and longest voting processes and that is why our general elections (not off-year or midterms) have such high turnout - over 56%. That is with successive Republican SOSs. Can you imagine if we'd had Democrats in the SOS positions?!!
But maybe they will just do the mail-in for 2018 to save $$ on the primary process.
Another thing we have here is automatic voter registration when you get a driver's license or state ID. But most people register as Independent (it's the wild west still after all) but it was still heavily a Hillary state.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)If a couple of other states, like New York and Texas do the same, the primary season would end in March, really. Maybe we should just move all primaries to a fixed date and leave it at that. I'd be glad to see that happen, frankly.
RandySF
(58,659 posts)We had our 2008 primary in February, and Hillary won.
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)weeding out candidates who might look good on first-blush, but who fade in the harsh light of an extended contest.
Speedy conclusions are not a virtue in my estimation.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)No more dragging this crap out.
Retrograde
(10,132 posts)One of the earlier ones in the country, IIRC. California went strongly for Clinton, and we were pretty much lost in the Super Tuesday circus.
I would like my state to have more of an impact, but I don't know if this is the answer (and sadly there's no foreseeable way we're going to see an election based on the national popular vote any time soon). Will this be a primary for all the other offices as well, or will we still have the normal June primaries for senator, representative, etc.? Will this be a one issue election, or will California do the usual and stick a bunch of propositions on the ballot?