Tag: elections

Many Primary Ideas

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

There are a variety of ideas for how we can fix our primary election process. They range from a lottery system proposed in comments and a post earlier on my site to more authoritative proposals such as rotating regional primaries as outlined by Trey Grason (go to page 25 of the PDF – hat tip the Senate Site)

Unfortunately, it is too late to fix the process for 2008, but steps can be taken for 2012. The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) is hoping to generate support for rotating regional primaries as a step toward that goal. The association’s bipartisan proposal, created by the nation’s chief state election officials, divides the country into four regions and establishes primary windows in March, April, May and June.

I was also interested in the proposal published in the New York Times by Jonathan Soros suggesting a national primary day where individual voters could opt to vote early.

There is, however, a simple way to establish a national primary and yet still allow retail politicking to meaningfully affect the course of the campaign over several months: allow early voting, with regular reporting of the tally.

Here’s one way it could work. Set a national primary date of June 30 and create a window for early voting that opens on Jan. 1. The early votes would be counted and reported at the end of each month from January through May. . .
If we began counting and reporting the interim results in advance of a national primary, the voters who cast early ballots would play the same role as voters in Iowa and New Hampshire do now: they could signal viability or create momentum for their favored candidates. These early voters would be self-selecting, trading the opportunity to watch the campaign unfold for the ability to demonstrate early conviction.

Most important, every voter, no matter where he or she lived, would have the freedom to make this choice. Right now, when one votes is determined by where one lives.

The national primary day has drawbacks, but I’m sure there are detractors to the rotating regional primaries as well and I know there are those who gripe about the lottery idea. I’m not ready to advocate for one idea over another, and I’m sure that all of them would offer an overall improvement over the current mess. What I would really like to see is an widespread, active, and public conversation now – not sometime after 2009 – to decide how we would like this system to operate because the current setup is going to lead to perpetual campaigning (like having candidates declaring six months into the four year cycle) unless we take steps to rein it in.

Tags elections, ideas, issues, media, New York Times

National

Bowling for Primaries

I have been thinking about the comments by Bradley when I wrote about the primary election power struggle between the states and the parties. Last night the thought occurred to me that the parties could simply pick a new way of awarding delegates. They could set three dates on the primary calendar. Whatever states held primaries or caucuses on or before the first date would have 10% of all delegates allocated among them. States who held their primaries after the first date but before the second date would have 20% of the delegates split among them. States between the second and third dates would would split 30% of the delegates and states holding primaries after the third date would split the remaining 40% of delegates.

The parties could then invite states to participate in a given window based on population and/or a lottery but the states would then be allowed to set their primary dates wherever they chose. If we imagine that the first date for 2008 was February 4th then “Super Duper Tuesday” (or whatever it’s being called now) states would be competing for 20% of the delegates in choosing the party nominees. When states choose when to have their primaries they have to balance the value of being influential in the early stages against the larger pool of delegates to by split by those who come later.

Questions? Comments? Rebuttals?

Tags democracy, elections, parties

National

Power Struggle

This is nothing new in politics (power struggles in general or this one in particular) but it is starting to get more press coverage – the question is, “Who controls the nomination process – the states, or the parties?” The struggle is most public among the Democrats as their candidates have now promised to honor the Party primary calendar. The Republicans are dealing with the very same issue but without the same level of publicity. The struggle between the parties and the states seems to be a direct result of a struggle among the states to gain influence in the candidate selection process. I am left to wonder how the traditional set of early states was initially established? Was that set by the parties, or by the respective states? (Can anyone enlighten me on that?)

In my mind the parties should not control the process. On the other hand, they are choosing representatives for their respective parties so they should have control of how those representatives are chosen. I believe that experience had led the parties to value a process where they largely mimic each other through the primary cycle. (I’m not sure exactly why that is although I have a few guesses) While I believe that states should be able to choose how and when they participate in the primary selection process I’m not convinced that voters win when the primary season is pushed so far in advance of the general election. Imagine if the candidates for the election of 2000 were chosen in mid 1997 and then had 9/11 occur in mid 1998. We could find that the candidates we had chosen were ill suited to our new reality. (I know that’s an extreme example – almost too ridiculous to comprehend, but you can’t miss my point) There’s always a certain amount of risk that changes will occur between the primary selection and the final vote, but the earlier we push the primaries the greater that risk becomes.

What do other people think? Who should control the primary schedule? What would the ideal schedule look like (in general terms)? Is the current reshuffling power-struggle good, bad, or neutral for voters and the country?

Tags candidates, democracy, elections, media, reactions

General

Ames Results

The results of the straw poll in Ames were just what I would have wanted. Mitt Romney won, as predicted, but Mike Huckabee came in second as I had hoped. His second place finish was called a surprise, but I can’t imagine a better candidate in that spot. Unlike many better known candidates I would have no reservations with seeing Huckabee in the White House. The only thing I could have hoped for in Ames that didn’t happen would have been if Huckabee had garnered all the votes from those candidates who received less than 5% so that there was more distance between him and Sam Brownback in third place.

Tags 2008, elections, national candidates

General

Approaching Ames

I’m looking forward to the results of the Ames, Iowa straw poll this weekend. Because of the candidates who are skipping it I am not sure if it will have much effect on the top tier of the Republican field, but I am hoping that it will be beneficial to my favorite second tier candidtae among the Republicans, Mike Huckabee. In an interview for the Washington Post he took my preferred position on one issue where I disagree with Mitt Romney by endorsing John McCain’s stance regarding torture (or enhanced interrogation).

I would love to see Governor Huckabee in the top tier instead of someone like Rudy Giuliani who is well known but has not convinced me that he has anything more going for him than being in the right position at the right time to gain that fame. If the Ames straw poll plays out right for Huckabee, he might have a shot at breaking into the top tier and getting the exposure that he deserves in the media.

Tags 2008, elections, national candidates

National

The Election is Over

At the (earlier than expected) conclusion of this election season, I just thought I would add a thought in reaction to the ending. I hope that President Bush will be as gracious in his victory speach as Senator Kerry was in his concession speach. I hope that he talks about unifying the nation – as his opponenet did – but more importantly I hope the president follows such talk through with real action.

As for John Kerry, I think that he displayed real class in acknowledging when victory was out of reach and also in not buckling early while victory seemed remote but not impossible. I was prepared to wait for days while the provisional ballots were counted in Ohio. John Kerry made that possibility less disturbing by calmly allowing the process to proceed without crying foul or vowing to win at all cost or any other thing he could have done to make this election ugly. Before he cried for unity in his concession speach, John Kerry refrained from sowing dischord and thus displayed some of the qualities that make him a remarkable American.

My hat is off to this brave and determined competitor and citizen.

Tags 2004, elections

General

How We All Win

I have been thinking about this and there has been speculation and anecdotal evidence but the first evidence I found regarding voter turnout came in USATODAY where we are shown the truth of how many people came out to vote this election cycle. I am convinced that we all win in a democratic system whenever participation goes up. Hopefully we can find ways (better than we had this year) to raise voter turnout on a consistent basis.

Tags activism, elections

General

The Beginnings of Unity

There are plenty of reactions out there that are bitter, angry, spiteful or haughty across the political spectrum. Here is a good example of a reasonable approach to creating healing and unity by focusing on now rather than dwelling on a past that we cannot change whether or not we would want to.

I hope to see more and more of the unifying, forward-thinking types of reactions across the net and across the country as the election drifts slowly out of our rearview mirror.

Tags 2004, elections

National

Longterm View

I have figured out the best reason to re-elect George Bush this year. I am under no pretense that everybody agrees with this idea, but I think few people have considered the unique opportunity that re-electing our current president provides for the American political system.

If George Bush is re-elected he will not leave any heir-apparent in the Republican party which would give moderate republicans four years to get to work in the effort of taking back their party from the extreme rightists that currently control it by the time that they have to hold a primary election to select their next presidential candidate – someone who is moderate rather than someone who is willing to talk moderate.

Before every presidential election the party that is not in control of the White House holds a presidential primary to choose their guy, but the party in powe rarely does that. If President Bush is re-elected both parties will be holding serious prmary elections – there will be no real incumbant in either party and moderates in both parties can make their voices heard so that we do not end up like this year without a good candidate on the ballot – that includes all the third party candidates.

One of the resons that I find it rather easy to write this before the election is because my vote is already cast based on geography. Because I live in Utah my vote will be counted for President Bush no matter who it is I would like to support. Perhaps I am trying to find a reason to support the vote that will inevitably be recorded for me in the electoral college.

Tags 2004, 2008, elections

National

Interesting Thought

I just had an interesting thought. I have been looking at our presidential candidates and what they have been saying and I just recognized a difference in the campaigns.

President Bush is running for the office of president of the United States. (Anyone reading that is going to say “Duh, what did you think he was running for?”) The interesting things is that I just realized that Senator Kerry is not running for the office of president of the United States (Now those same people are saying “I thought he was running for president of the United States, what do you think he is running for?”) he is running for the office of “Leader of the Free World.”

Is there a difference? Yes.

Which one should they be running for? That is for the voters to decide.

Tags 2004, elections