Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Even after a big win for Donald Trump in the New York primary last night, it is still likely that no candidate will arrive at the convention with a majority of the delegates on the first ballot. A recent
This is a great post – in an era of more competitive polling, states could conduct primaries where voters can rank their preferred candidates. I like the idea, especially where there is a crowded field.
I like this idea. It avoids the need for runoff elections in those situations where they might otherwise occur.
Why is it that even constitutional conservatives are willing to throw out the Federalist baby with the bathwater when they believe they have a scheme that will produce an outcome they desire?
I likes my antiquated, different-in-every-state primary process and I will brook no meddling, centralized control of the primary process.
I wonder if, there were some other process currently in place you would prefer to move to what we have now?
For example, do you like the way the Democrats do it, with the super-delagates?
I’m not sure the Constitution or federalism have anything to do with the way the parties choose nominees. The negatives of the current system are significant. The outsized role of Iowa and New Hampshire, for example. The fact that the campaign takes so long and costs so much, when other countries can do it in less than half the time. The fact that in most cycles the nominees are chosen before many people, sometimes half the electorate, get to vote at all.
I hope there are reasons to keep the current system other than it’s the current system.
Another thought that occurs to me is that the current system seems to eliminate candidates like Scott Walker who might have done pretty well in parts of the country that, as it happened, didn’t get to vote while he was still in the running. The current system seems so random.
A very good point. It is very difficult to get fifty states and fifty parties and the national party and the candidates to agree/disagree on what the best system would be. Iowa and NH will doggedly defend their status as firsts, how do we get around that without pushing their contests to be too early?
I don’t see why the nominating process can’t mirror the election process. There could be a series of debates over some few months, during which time the candidates campaign wherever they want, and then everyone votes, using the method described in the OP. Someone wins the nomination, and then the general election campaign begins. It would be quicker, cheaper, and everyone’s vote counts.
The hard part would be finding a date that fits the existing election schedule in all of the states and territories. I am assuming that is why it is incremental over a period of half a year the way it is now.
It would be “Primary Election Day,” a national holiday, and would be no different from Election Day. It could be be the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May.
Some states wouldn’t agree, and they have the power under the Constitution to disagree. How would you convince them it’s a good system, locally?
I think the parties could do whatever they want. As it stands, the states run primaries, but the parties run caucuses. The parties decide how delegates are to be assigned. So the party could decide that all the states would have caucuses on the same day, and they would count the votes for delegates as described in the OP, and it could be winner takes all, or some kind of proportionality. Either would work.
Even though, for the vast majority of those different-in-every-states, the primary/caucus process has only been around since the 1972 election?
Is this an issue to be administered or decided by state government? I haven’t tried to research this but I remain puzzled by the conversation since I thought political parties are private organizations.
Can someone here explain exactly what is the role of a state in the process a political party uses to select delegates for a national convention?
My understanding is that the state runs the primary, but it’s up to the party to decide if they want to participate, or run something of its own, like the caucus.
Does this mean the state is involved only operationally (presumably because they already have the existing voting mechanism for elections) and if the Party decides not to have a primary there is no state role?
And if there is to be a primary, where is the decision made regarding ‘open’ or ‘closed’?
Actually, I think it’s up to the state to decide, not the party.
The rules of the caucus seem to be so different from a primary that it appears the state has nothing to do with it. For example, at some caucuses supporters can get up and make speeches for their candidate before the voting. Can’t do that at a primary.
It does seem that the state can determine how delegates are selected, but if it doesn’t then party rules prevail. This is the best answer I can find. I’m not 100% confident that it’s right.
At my precinct’s caucus in Utah we had more than 200 participants and sent 5 delegates to the county convention, unbound. There they select delegates to the State convention. After we selected delegates at the caucus, then we voted individually for either Cruz, Trump, or Kasich. Our 5 delegates gave short talks and 4 were for Cruz and 1 for Kasich.
It’s evident to me why Cruz wins caucus states and Trump does better in open primaries. Trump attracts a lot of votes from people who watch reality TV and Cruz attracts those active in conservative politics.
It annoys the heck out of me that these people get as many votes as I do.
They each get one vote but there’s a lot of them.