California may give up bid for more clout in picking presidential nominees

[Kadie]

State may give up bid for more clout in picking presidential nominees


By STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press Writer


Last Updated: August 8, 2004, 01:05:19 PM PDT


SACRAMENTO (AP) - California, the big prize in presidential politics, may be about to give up its eight-year quest for more clout in picking presidential nominees.

A bill moving through the Legislature would shift the state's primary election from early March to a traditional June date and put California at the back of the pack when states select presidential convention delegates.

The measure's author, state Sen. Ross Johnson, R-Irvine, says a March election has made the campaign season unreasonably long, increased campaign costs and reduced voter turnout without boosting the state's role in determining who ends up in the White House.

"I would think that anyone would look at this and say this has been a failure," he said. "This has not been good for democracy, not been good for elections in California and let's own up to it and say it's a mistake."

more...
http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/8965842p-9858488c.html

[MontecitoDem]

1. This is ridiculous

I can't understand how this has passed through the State Senate already without more uproar. Did I read that correctly? California deserves a say. Just because everything flowed from Iowa and NH this year doesn't mean it will always be so.

MMM, this makes me mad.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. The state legislators want a shroter campaign season

This gives their opponents less time to raise money and gain support.

[Journeyman]

2. We need a rotating series of primaries. . .

Divide the nation into 6 geographical regions, then rotate the order so a different region of the nation will vote first each election cycle. Not only does it give every section of the nation a chance to "vote first," but it has the added benefit of keeping the campaign in a specific region (reducing travel costs) while it forces the candidates to address the issues of each region in greater depth, instead of relying solely on their canned national speeches.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a national primary?

Or hold all primaries and caucuses on the same day?

[Journeyman]

6. Holding a national primary, or everything on the same day. . .

wouldn't resolve the issue of extensive traveling, nor would it force the candidates to address the issues of a particular region in place of canned national speeches.

Also, I believe we need to have an extended primary season, to allow for an interplay of thoughts and ideas, and to permit a 'slow starter' the opportunity to prove themselves to the public.

[MaryBear]

5. Which states would you group together?

Interesting suggestion. Would you use time zones as a key? And where would you start? I always appreciate constructive suggestions! Complaints without solutions can become tiring.

[Journeyman]

7. Hadn't thought it through to the division, Grandma. . .

but I imagine a regional grouping would be best. Instead of an artificial construct such as a timezone, a geographical grouping based on shared ecosystems (rivers, groundwater, forests, etc) might be better, so that the shared problems of the region might be best addressed.

I think a lottery of some sort would be best for figuring out the order of voting.

And while I'm solving electoral problems, I think the Nominating Conventions need to be held at established times each year, and the parties should switch off which one will be first each election. That way, we wouldn't have a repeat of the situation we have this year, with one party's convention so much later than the other. Also, let them both use private money until after both nominees are in place, thereby removing the unequal financial situation we had the possibility of this election.

[bemildred]

3. Can't have these Librul states influencing the nominees now, can we? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Democrats control both houses of the legislature in CA

by fairly wide margins. This is not a "liberal vs. conserative" thing. This is a "state legislators want a shorter campaing season so that they are more likely to be reelected" thing.

[bemildred]

10. Whatever you say, Fred.

I think it is no accident that Iowa and N. Hampshire come first, but that might
well be a different issue.