Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How? The media keeps saying they give influence but I don't understand how... do people in another state vote based on what another state says? That seems a little dumb for people to do...
The biggest influence the early primaries have is in weeding out the candidates who can't raise the money to keep going, or are so unprepared (or unpopular) they can't win enough support to keep going.
What we saw in the GOP field in 2016 was both typical and unusual; it was rare to see so many candidates, and the weeding-out process worked with a few, but having 17 in the field was a huge number, and that so many of them could last for so long into and past Super Tuesday was extremely unusual.
Super Tuesday came about as a way to neutralize the effects of money on our primaries. With so many states holding their primary on the same day, the thought was only the best prepared and most popular candidates would survive, but the plan never worked.
There are always going to be easy states for a party and hard states. And there are always going to be states where the voters never turn out to vote in a primary, while there are others where the primary vote is always as high as the general election.
Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the second; their voters turn out for the primaries in big numbers, and always have, because they get to know the candidates very much better than most voters do.
Those early primaries, however, also allow the rest of the nation to get to know candidates they really don't know much about because there is so much media coverage in those states.
All that free exposure has some legitimate political purposes. For the candidates, the early primaries are a way to become known and a way to generate some funding.
For the voters, they are an opportunity to see how those people actually perform under the pressures of public debate, the way they handle themselves in the public political arena, and what they say in their stump speeches, along with how they say it.
All that is valid. We all saw what the pundits thought early in 2015, when Jeb Bush and Scott Walker showed up with multi-millions in their war chests. Both were thought at that time to be the real leaders of the race, and the new faces of their party in the future.
But once in full view of the voters, one turned out to be a dry-fire dud and the other showed he had no ability to manage the money he was given. Neither lasted for very long afterwards.
The early primaries have always been and will always be a trial by fire for newbies. In that, they do serve a good political purpose. And that's why their state voters will always choose to not go along with the rest of the pack and remain the first and earliest.
At least, for as long as the electoral college continues to exist. If it ever goes, that could radically change the way we choose our candidates, but we will still need some new way to become acquainted with them all on a level that money alone cannot do.
So it the electoral college goes, there will be some way this happens. I don't know what that may be, but a way will be found, and it might not be the best for our nation.
There are other new ways that are being experimented with right now. Voting by mail could become voting by email pretty easily. Absentee voting could become a much bigger factor in the future than it is now. Open primaries could really change things, as could a singly national day to vote in the primaries.
Any or all could radically change the way we vote, and changing the way we vote will radically change our republican form of democracy.
The ultimate question could become: Do we want to continue as a republic, or do we want to become a direct democracy?
For a nation of our size, power, and influence, that is a very serious question.
At the very least there should be the four states to give the little guy a chance, followed by Super Tuesday
Date State/territory Clinton Sanders
February 1 Iowa 49.8% 49.6%
February 9 New Hampshire 38.0% 60.4%
February 20 Nevada 52.6% 47.3%
February 27 South Carolina 73.5% 26.0%
Because many people like to vote for a proven winner.
I voted yes on the poll. If the primaries were all held on the same day in, say, April, it would hopefully cut down on at least some of the madness.
And in case it needs saying, the states should continue to run the primaries.
I agree with this. PA votes very late in the primaries. Rand Paul was my choice, but he'd already dropped out by the time we got around to voting. I wrote him in anyway. He doesn't have widespread support, so I doubt he'd have ever been a serious contender, but I know more than a couple people who would have voted for him if he were on the ballot and we didn't already have a clear front-runner.
I agree with this. PA votes very late in the primaries. Rand Paul was my choice, but he'd already dropped out by the time we got around to voting. I wrote him in anyway. He doesn't have widespread support, so I doubt he'd have ever been a serious contender, but I know more than a couple people who would have voted for him if he were on the ballot and we didn't already have a clear front-runner.
And the momentum gets even further skewed by the early states that are winner-take-all. For example, in South Carolina, Trump/Cruz/Rubio finished 32%/22%/22%, but Trump collected 100% of the delegates.
How? The media keeps saying they give influence but I don't understand how... do people in another state vote based on what another state says? That seems a little dumb for people to do...
It's called "momentum".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
NO........They should do it by regions, so all the candidates go in person to each of those states and campaigns. If you do the primaries as national elections, then the candidates will focus on a few key states and ignore the rest.
they should do it by a 8 states region primaries at a time.
No leave the election process the way it is next time Dem wins the white house the left won't be saying a word about the election system it will be the GOP screaming voter fraud. The loser always cries how broken our election system is until their Candide wins. I don't want anything that remotely resembles European elections systems.
No leave the election process the way it is next time Dem wins the white house the left won't be saying a word about the election system it will be the GOP screaming voter fraud. The loser always cries how broken our election system is until their Candide wins. I don't want anything that remotely resembles European elections systems.
That's not true. Many of us think our election cycle and order in which states vote needs to change.
The winner in 2016 by popular vote (which should be the law of the land) did not "win" (only per our antiquated electoral college system) and that is what this country needs to change. It should be one person, one vote, whether it is on the same day nationwide or it is all on the same day. Then, whoever wins the popular vote becomes the President.
As a West Coaster who has had to wait until the election is over or mostly over before my own state's votes are even calculated, it does seem at least very interesting and perhaps even a good trial for us to consider having all states vote at once, whether for the primary or the general election.
We do need to shorten the excessively long and expensive election cycle which goes on and on and on to the point of absurdity. Too much money is wasted on elections.
There are just as many "little guys" throughout California (maybe more) than there are in some of the current early states, so that excuse does not hold water.
No, that would be too boring for TV viewing and no one would talk about, for example, the poll numbers in Delaware, Rhode Island or Idaho. It would be around the clock coverage of California, NY, Texas and Florida.
No, that would be too boring for TV viewing and no one would talk about, for example, the poll numbers in Delaware, Rhode Island or Idaho. It would be around the clock coverage of California, NY, Texas and Florida.
Yes, my concern with a single primary date would be that candidates only focus on the high population states because that's where the delegates are. But at the same time, I'm not a huge fan of the current system where it's basically futile for someone in say, Pennsylvania, to cast their vote because by then, things are wrapping up (if not already wrapped up).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
