Kansas will have no 2016 primary?? (Wichita, Topeka: 2015, college, live in)

[601halfdozen0theother]

Hello -

On the "elections" subform a poster included this link about when the political parties in each state will have their primaries: Frontloading HQ: The 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

It was interesting so I read the whole thing. Including this:
Kansas
(2015 Legislation: cancel 2016 presidential primary: House/Senate, omnibus elections package--
Signed into Law -- signed 6/8/15)
[Primary cancelled]

Clicking further, I read: "Legislation introduced on Tuesday, February 17 in the Kansas state Senate would cancel the presidential primary in the Sunflower state for the sixth consecutive cycle.

Kansas held a presidential primary last in 1992, but the state government has not appropriated funds for the election in any of the election years since.

The change is obviously a cost-savings move, but it is also reflective of an extension of what has become a customary practice in Kansas."

Whaaat, Kansas?? ???

Don't you Kansas voters feel left out, cheated, and frustrated?

Seems very un-American to me.

But maybe there is more to the story and you all really do get to have some input via your political parties???

Explain this to the rest of us, if you will.

Thank you!

[Mathguy]

You mean if we ignore the 30,000 or so votes in the caucuses then voters were left out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...lican_caucuses

[AnywhereElse]

I found this: Kansas Republican Party

I cannot figure out how a caucus works even by reading the information. It happens between 10:00 AM and 2:00 pm and they claim there is a ballot you cast but I thought a caucus worked differently. That you listened to speakers or something.

Has anyone been to one in KS? I see ours is at the fairgrounds. My husband is never allowed to be off on the weekends, never, so he won't be able to go. I don't think from reading it that since my son isn't registered to vote that he could be there with me and he can't be left alone. Maybe it is supposed to be difficult. I don't understand why this isn't like regular voting.

[601halfdozen0theother]

I couldn't understand why poster above only cited the Republican caucus, and I'm still somewhat confused.

So, I found this in a Topeka Capital-Journal editorial entitled "Electoral College gives Kansas a Voice", cited by another poster in the election sub-forum

"Generally, each political party in a state selects its electoral voters during a party convention or by vote of the party’s central committee. As voters cast ballots for the presidential candidates, they also are voting for that party’s electors.

In Kansas, that almost always means the Republican Party’s electors are the ones casting the state’s six Electoral College votes. They aren’t bound by state law to vote for a particular candidate, but the political parties aren’t in the habit of selecting mavericks as electors."


So help me make sure I understand this accurately now. In Kansas voters go to party caucuses, which are paid for by the parties and receive no state funding (in other states caucuses receive state funding). It is the party conventions, though, that really determine the candidates. In November of a presidential election year, because Kansas' congressmen and senators are usually Republican, all 6 of the state's electoral college votes go to the Republican candidate for President.

Is that correct?

If so, do the Democrats even bother to have a caucus??

The Capitol-Journal editorial concluded with this: "Only Maine and Nebraska apportion their Electoral College votes according to the state’s popular vote. Kansas is a “winner take all” state."

That might be worth a move to Nebraska!

[Mathguy]

Since certain states, cities, counties etc. have such high concentrations of either Republicans or Democrats each party under their own rules decides how or even IF to run a candidate.

"We the people" still get to vote in the main election but unless you belong to one of those parties you have (rightfully so) no say in what they decide to do within their own organization.

For example, the Republican party isn't going to spend $5million trying to support a candidate for the Mayorship of Chicago.

The Democrats aren't going to waste their resources on caucuses, advertisements etc. for president in Kansas.

If you do not like any of this then by all means start your own political party and determine your candidate by vote, by random selection or by a hearty game of rock-paper-scissors.....or move....or rise up within the ranks of an already established party and change how they do things.

<shrug>

[AnywhereElse]

I posted the GOP one because that is the only one I care about. I thought Democrats could "google" if they cared, guess not. Kansas Democratic Party | Fighting for a Better Kansas

Apparently, OP doesn't even live in KS. If OP wishes to question this across the US, I would suggest the "Election" sub-forum under "Politics".

[Mattks]

Are there any Democrats in Kansas that post regularly on the Kansas forum? I'm independent and probably one of the more moderate posters... I'm not a fan of the Kansas GOP, but the Kansas Democratic Party is a joke and has terrible leadership. Anyway, I've always had mixed feelings on caucuses, Nebraska and Maine have a good thing going, but most states do caucuses just like Kansas.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by AnywhereElse

I posted the GOP one because that is the only one I care about. I thought Democrats could "google" if they cared, guess not. Kansas Democratic Party | Fighting for a Better Kansas

Apparently, OP doesn't even live in KS. If OP wishes to question this across the US, I would suggest the "Election" sub-forum under "Politics".

Yep, it's another drive-by post by another partisan bashing on us.

Hopefully they've now learned something and will go away.

To the OP, if your panties are still in a bunch over how private organizations caucus, then google "Chicago Stroger son" and prepare to be amazed.

I guess it's time to start more positive threads about KS huh?

[601halfdozen0theother]

Nope, it wasn't a bash at all.

Just a genuine attempt to understand something.

I would have asked the same question in another state forum if the article (completely non-partisan and simply a statistical list) noted such an interesting thing about that state. Don't you think the people who live in the state are the best people to explain what happens in their state?

I find the electoral college system very confusing, and am struggling to understand how it all works. The older I get and the more places I have lived and voted, the more confusing it all seems.

And I'm not particularly pro either of the major political parties.

Be at peace, Kansans! I don't have a thing in the world against you.

(I loved my year in Lawrence back in the early 80s, but was miserable in Wichita in the mid 90s).

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother

Nope, it wasn't a bash at all.

Just a genuine attempt to understand something.

I would have asked the same question in another state forum if the article (completely non-partisan and simply a statistical list) noted such an interesting thing about that state. Don't you think the people who live in the state are the best people to explain what happens in their state?

I find the electoral college system very confusing, and am struggling to understand how it all works. The older I get and the more places I have lived and voted, the more confusing it all seems.

And I'm not particularly pro either of the major political parties.

Be at peace, Kansans! I don't have a thing in the world against you.

(I loved my year in Lawrence back in the early 80s, but was miserable in Wichita in the mid 90s).

Sorry, much like my former city of Chicago....Kansas gets lots and lots of threads from very partisan people trying to attack it over pretty much anything and everything.

It's rather bizarre.

State rivalries etc. are normal but around here it's like nothing I've ever seen.