HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » What would happen if we h...

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:24 PM

What would happen if we had a national primary?

Just wondering if that is even a possibility. Everyone would vote for the person they wanted as their nominee, then three or four states would not determine if your candidate was viable. It could be held in May, with the conventions in June. It should be on a weekend, no caucus just flat voting.

I am really not fond of the way we do it now.

55 replies, 2785 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply What would happen if we had a national primary? (Original post)
redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 OP
Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2016 #1
Agschmid Mar 2016 #2
redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #7
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #3
yeoman6987 Mar 2016 #40
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #42
Blus4u Mar 2016 #4
liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #5
bigwillq Mar 2016 #6
daleanime Mar 2016 #8
liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #11
Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #9
Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #10
Proud Public Servant Mar 2016 #12
liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #13
Proud Public Servant Mar 2016 #18
redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #21
redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #16
Proud Public Servant Mar 2016 #45
jwirr Mar 2016 #50
Mufaddal Mar 2016 #14
liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #15
Spider Jerusalem Mar 2016 #17
MSMITH33156 Mar 2016 #19
sufrommich Mar 2016 #20
Recursion Mar 2016 #22
Kaleva Mar 2016 #23
liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #25
Kaleva Mar 2016 #29
liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #33
hill2016 Mar 2016 #24
cherokeeprogressive Mar 2016 #26
liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #27
cherokeeprogressive Mar 2016 #28
liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #30
Garrett78 Mar 2016 #31
cherokeeprogressive Mar 2016 #32
Garrett78 Mar 2016 #36
Autumn Mar 2016 #34
MineralMan Mar 2016 #35
Garrett78 Mar 2016 #37
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #38
redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #39
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #46
Yavin4 Mar 2016 #41
JackRiddler Mar 2016 #43
Nye Bevan Mar 2016 #44
Chitown Kev Mar 2016 #47
BainsBane Mar 2016 #48
jwirr Mar 2016 #49
oldandhappy Mar 2016 #51
PFunk1 Mar 2016 #52
redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #55
randr Mar 2016 #53
BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #54

Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:25 PM

1. Not a bad idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:26 PM

2. It's not a terrible idea...

But it does prevent "underdog" candidates from doing well, it would almost always support the establishment.

I think regional would be better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:28 PM

7. I hadn't thought about the underdog but i would think that it would give them enough time

to campaign and get their message out there. Of course it would help if they would overturn Citizen's United. Regional is a great idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:26 PM

3. We would be much more like a democracy. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 02:39 PM

40. It would guarantee a trump vs Clinton

 

Which looks like it will happen anyway. I'd rather a state s week for 50 weeks so the candidate has to go to every state to at least understand each state a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #40)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 02:52 PM

42. I'd rather that the whole nation vote for the national office of president.

 

And, vote in a national open primary for the candidates to nominate. If they want to add labels behind their names that's their choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:27 PM

4. That makes at least two of us,

and a much shorter campaign season (both pre and post primary)

Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:27 PM

5. Love it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:28 PM

6. I would support a national primary day in May or June(nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:29 PM

8. Pluses and minuses to both ways....

National would be quicker, with everyone's vote counting, but would shut out any candidates who aren't rich or have party blessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:33 PM

11. It's the way things are run now that shuts out candidates that don't have the party's blessing.

I don't really see how it would affect the finances of it. The candidates could still campaign and raise money. I'm in WA and we haven't voted yet and it hasn't stopped me from donating to my candidate's campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:29 PM

9. Can't have that: harder to control the rabble.

 

Actual democracy? Inconceivable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:31 PM

10. The Established "Two-Party" (wink wink) system

would find it impossible to manipulate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:33 PM

12. Great plan for nominating Hillary, for example

A national primary would massively favor the candidate with the greater name recognition, bigger war chest, more well-heeled donors, and better media connections. If you like your candidates pre-determined by the establishment, it's definitely the way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:35 PM

13. I think it is the complete opposite. It is the way things are run now that allows the

establishment to pre-determine who the candidate is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:41 PM

18. Then you're not thinking it through

Do you have any idea what it would cost to do ad buys in all 50 states simultaneously? Do you have any idea what would be required to build a 50-state field organization ready to be active simultaneously? Bernie couldn't do that. Hell, Obama couldn't have done that. Non-establishment candidates get where they get by building on one victory after another; if you want to put the whole country in play on one day, your going to end up with Clinton v. Bush elections forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:50 PM

21. Dreaming is not a good idea I guess.

I would like to see spending limited as well. I am just unhappy with the way they dismiss candidates, even ones I don't support, after a few states vote. There has to be a better way, may as someone suggested above regional primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:40 PM

16. I don't think so

The process we use now costs so much money it actually helps a main stream candidate who is well funded. I just want everyone's vote to count. If my candidate loses at least I feel it was a fair system and I can get behind the candidate of my choice in the general. In a perfect world these campaigns would have a spending cap so no one candidate could outspend another, it would be an issues only thing, but we will never see that in this country.

I really feel this would be a much fairer system, but as people have pointed out the parties may not be happy with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 03:42 PM

45. You put your finger on it - it's money, not timing

Without public financing and spending limits, anything like a national primary, or even having the primaries start in large states, favors the richest candidates. Let's fix financing first and then worry about the schedule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:04 PM

50. It would be a lot easier to steal an election with only one

to fix. Fifty is a little harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:36 PM

14. Things to add to that wishlist

-Instant-runoff voting
-Dispensing with the electoral college in the GE
-Dispensing with super delegates
-Public funding of elections or, alternatively: all candidates must wear sponsor jumpers like a NASCAR driver
-Inter-party debates during the primaries

Super wishlist item:
-Ending political parties entirely; candidates simply run for office on their ideas and not affiliations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mufaddal (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:37 PM

15. Abso freakin lutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:40 PM

17. Never happen, and probably a bad idea

unless you want to only run candidates with national name recognition who can afford hundreds of millions in advertising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:44 PM

19. Wouldn't have mattered this year

but in 2008, Hillary probably would have been the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:46 PM

20. A candidate would need a billion dollars to even

think of entering the campaign,that's what would happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:51 PM

22. Well funded establishment candidates would always win (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:54 PM

23. The well off or well funded would have a big advantage.

Those with name recognition, great personal wealth, long standing political connections on a national level and/or backed by the 1% would have a big advantage against most other candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:57 PM

25. That's exactly how it works now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:06 PM

29. Think of Bernie's situation

Would he had a chance if he would have had to put together a national campaign and somehow raise the funds needed to advertise and campaign in the big, more expensive, states?

No candidate would bother with the smaller states such as NH, Iowa, SC, Colorado and so on. They'd just campaign in California, New York, Texas and the other delegate rich states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:24 PM

33. There is much about our system that needs to change. All I know is I feel the party is doing

everything it can to push my candidate out of the race and trying to make it as difficult as possible for me to cast my vote for my candidate. This is not democracy. 40% of Americans including myself consider themselves Independent and part of it is not just the rigged economy but also the rigged electoral system. Either we have to change the way we do things or both parties are doomed to die a slow death. And then something different will come out of those ashes. So either parties change and become more democratic or they die and democracy comes out of the ashes like a phoenix. Either way things will change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 12:56 PM

24. A national primary

 

would almost always nominate people like Trump on the right as he would have the plurality of a votes in a crowded field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:02 PM

26. One problem: We have a federal government, not a national one.

 

We are a federation of 50 states and DC. Each state gets to pick without outside interference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:04 PM

27. The parties are already getting to interfere. That is the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:06 PM

28. That's irrelevant.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:07 PM

30. Well that may be the way it is but if we want our votes to count we have to come up

with something different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:10 PM

31. IA and NH certainly shouldn't have as much influence as they do.

Personally, I'd like every state to have their primary over the course of the same few days (maybe a Friday through Sunday in January), following 2 or 3 months of campaigning. The top 2 (or possibly 3 if a certain threshold is met) would advance, and the rest would have to drop out. After more campaigning, every state would once again hold a primary election (over the course of 3 days) and a nominee would be determined. Endorsements would be allowed, of course. But there would be no such thing as a "superdelegate."

Generally, there's a frontrunner and several alternatives to the frontrunner. The problem is the alternatives tend to split the vote, which is an advantage to the frontrunner (it's not really an issue with the Democrats this year as it quickly became a 2-person race, but it is certainly an issue for the Republicans this year). That's why I would support an elimination round and then a 2nd round to determine the nominee.

Also, I don't see why IA or NH or SC (or any single state) should have so much influence over the results (why should "momentum" be a factor in deciding who the nominee should be?). Especially states that don't mirror the overall electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:20 PM

32. "Elect ME" is speech you'd not use the First Amendment to protect?

 

Every state should be just as meaningful as any other. No state should have more influence in ANYTHING than any other.

But, you'd BAR people from running for President after you said they should drop out? Fuck me to tears yours is a country I wouldn't want to live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:32 PM

36. I'm saying anyone can run initially, but...

...if you allow 10 people to split the anti-frontrunner or anti-establishment vote, you're only helping the frontrunner. Thus my suggestion of having 2 (or maybe even 3) rounds.

Obviously some states have more influence or importance in that they're more populous, but I think every state should vote at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:27 PM

34. Democracy would break out all over. Do we really want that?



No the way we do it now is ridiculous and it leaves a lot of people out. It just doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:32 PM

35. The biggest problem with this is the cost

to candidates to conduct a national campaign from the beginning. Establishment candidates with powerful fundraising capabilities would have a strong advantage, while candidates like Bernie would be stymied. A national campaign, as we'll see following the convention, is horrendously expensive.

I think a single, national primary would force less-known candidates out of the running before they could begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:35 PM

37. That's why I suggest 2 or 3 shorter rounds of campaigning and voting.

See my post above. Campaign for a couple months, hold a national primary. Then, hopefully with fewer candidate still running, campaign for a couple more months and hold another national primary. Then a nominee is determined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:57 PM

38. We don't even have a national election, we have 50 synchronized state elections.

in accordance with the Constitution.

Primaries are not even mentioned in the Constitution, and neither are political parties. In theory, you could do that, but the place of Iowas and New Hampshire is held sacred by both parties. There are other parties but none of them have the membership size to force the big two to do anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #38)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:59 PM

39. I think the TV networks hold Iowa and New Hampshire sacred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #39)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 03:48 PM

46. No, the parties have found them useful and those small states zealously guard the privilege.

The Iowa Caucus requires organization and small town politics. They spend millions there in ads, but more important than TV time is the months of face time the voters get with candidates. If you live in Iowa, and are even slightly interested, you can meet every candidate, face to face. That doesn't happen anywhere else but New Hampshire. In most cases the person who has the best organization will get the most people to the polls. Turnout is always small.

Iowa reveals a candidates ability to organize.

New Hampshire, like Iowa requires on the Ground organization and old fashioned country fair campaigning. Like Iowa, anyone can meet every candidate. In New Hampshire, a candidate shows how well he or she can schmooze and put together a real campaign.

Iowa and New Hampshire have two big weaknesses, as far as I'm concerned. They are disproportionally white and do not reflect the general demographics of the US.

They are small states, Population wise, and tend to be rural.

The reason why they persist is that the parties allow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 02:52 PM

41. Then the candidates would have to spend at least two years raising money for a national primary

They would have to campaign mostly through ads. The media would have an even bigger role as their coverage would dictate who reaches the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 03:10 PM

43. You need more than that or the money decides.

 

A single-round national primary goes to the best-known. Unless you structure it in some way such as multiple rounds with required debates, runoff voting. Suggestions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 03:14 PM

44. The establishment would absolutely LOVE that.

They would have full control. No insurgent candidates unexpectedly capturing the public's imagination after a strong showing in a small state. No unexpected setbacks to their designated front-runner. No opportunity for the voters to decide during the process that they dislike the conventional wisdom and move away from the front-runner candidate. No need for more than one or two debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 03:49 PM

47. 5 rounds of voting

= 10 states apiece...(throw in territories as needed)

Don't do it according to regions; have a good mix of states in so that national trends can be better discerned

For example: Round 1: Vermont, Virginia, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, Alaska, California, North Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire...something like that...do that for 4 rounds

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 03:53 PM

48. Article II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution

THE CONSTITUTION
Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


Elections fall under state rather than federal authority.


More here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 03:55 PM

49. Take a look at how the MSM has suppressed news of Bernie's

campaign. It took time to get his name recognition up enough so that he is viable and much of this was done through his success in the first three primaries.

One single primary would always favor the most recognized candidate. I am not really sure that would be a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:07 PM

51. One thing that would happen

is that we would all get to vote before it was declared all over! I am in CA. We don't vote until June. Kinda cracks me up that the chosen have been anointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:18 PM

52. Nice Idea but how about this one.

Three primaries each a month apart. Each month will give folks time to know the candidates. It's only a rough sketch so take it as you may.

The first one representing about 20% if the country population-wise (namely the smaller states) only done just to introduce folks to the candidates.

The second one representing about 30% of the country population-wise (namely the small to medium size states) to get an ideal of a candidates momentum and highlight who's popular and who's not without determining count-wise who's the winner.

The third and last one representing about 50% of the country population wise (namely the medium-to-largest states) which determines the candidate once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PFunk1 (Reply #52)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 05:18 PM

55. Interesting idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:38 PM

53. What would happen if we could vote by phone or computer?

Every election cycle I think about how we can spend billions of dollars every day on millions of purchases and transactions over a maze of networks and mediums and every single cent is accounted for. Yet when I ask why we still count votes in the archaic manner we still employ I am told it is so the vote is secure.
Seems to me that the opposite is a fact. The system we use is to ensure cheating and trickery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:42 PM

54. I agree that the way the US runs

elections is very piecemeal, messy, and believe that there is a lot of room for improvement.

But a lot of this piecemeal mess is dictated by the US Constitution. There's that pesky little thing called states' rights where states are sovereign w/r/t certain issues and events within their borders/jurisdiction. Unless the US Congress is able to pass some kind of legislation that would supersede those rights where federal elections are concerned and the US Supremes also uphold that law against an inevitable challenge, the idea is dead in the water - certainly for the near future.

One really becomes aware of how messy our system is when one lives abroad and tries to organize voting for US nationals from different states. Or when one tries to provide tax advice if expats must pay state as well as federal taxes. Each state has different rules and requirements.

Fortunately, there is a Democrats Abroad Global primary that alleviates that somewhat. Voting is still ongoing in that, btw, although voters are registered in accordance with various state laws so that they cannot vote twice (the dreaded voter fraud issue). There is no equivalent GOPer primary so Republicans can only vote through their states via absentee ballots. For more information, see http://www.dw.com/en/americans-abroad-can-vote-in-global-presidential-primary/a-19061221

The Dem delegates selected in the global primary will be split between Bernie and Hillary in accordance with the vote outcome and their votes cast at the national convention. Although I personally opted to vote in MD in 2016 by absentee ballot rather than in the Global Primary so that I can participate in some of the local elections, I know that at the Geneva vote of Dems Abroad, there was a good turnout in person and votes were almost evenly cast. There were still votes to come in from other areas (Basel, Bern, Zurich, etc.) by various means so the final totals for the country are yet to be determined.

It would be very nice if something could be worked out. But it took a LOT of very dedicated people who worked very hard for years even to get the Dem global primary going against some rather incredible odds and logistical problems. Without the internet, it would have been impossible. I am not sure that we have comparable individuals here in the US willing to dedicate such time and effort, especially when one major party is not interested in it at all. But if so, that would be great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread