But that's what the primaries ARE - they're the way the political parties choose
their candidates from among those who would like to be their party's candidate.
The only way for a primary to be something other than partisan would be to let
people who are not Democrats choose the Democrat candidate (same for Repubs).
So it sounds to me like you just said "yes" and "no" to my final question in a
Wrong. I'm talking about leaving to the Democrats, Republicans,
Libertarians, etc to decide whom and how many candidates they run
for any particular office, and making them all compete with each other
for a slot in the general election on an equal basis.
The alternative is a runoff-elimination system. Throw all
candidates who make the cut based on petitions in together
in the primary and eliminate them from the bottom up, using
the same method used in the Iowa caucuses.
But each party already runs who they want in the general election. How is that
different from the way things already work?
It would be foolish in the extreme for the Repubs, for example, to field three
candidates in ths same general election; the Repub votes would be split among
the three, and if the Demos fielded a single candidate the Demos would win every
Assuming the electorate is split almost evenly
between Republicans and Democrats and the
Republicans are almost evenly split among
the three Republican candidates then:
In the first round one Republican loses.
In the second round, another Republican loses.
That leaves one republican running against one
Democrat in the General election.
If there were many more Republicans then
Democrats in the elecotrate, you could have
Two Repubicans running against each other
in the General election.
No, but to understand why not requires further explanation.
The actual rule is that if a candidate wins more votes than all of
who finish below him/her COMBINED, then all of those below him/her
are eliminated. Thus fringe candidtes are emiinated on the first
ballot, and anytime a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote,
that ends the process. Also note that if the majority of the voters
are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and
if we assume that they mostly vote for candidates within their
parties the election will usually come down to a contest between
one Democrat and a Republican even if one party only runs
one candidate and the other runs several. The two party
_political_ system is preserved, but without violating the equal
protection of non affiliated voters and candidates, which partisan
primaries do by imposing different rules for ballot access for
non affiliated candidates.
As I explained earlier, I'm describing a system that was and maybe
still is, used in OK. They seldom had more than two elections, never
more than three, and sometimes only one. So the system is proven
to be practical in actual use.
The actual elimination process can and usually does eliminate more
than just the last place candidate, though it ALWAYS eliminates the
How about have it done the way it is done in the general election? Why
should Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire get to decide who runs for president?
Why should I have to move to Iowa in order to have a voice in this election?
"We the people..." Not "We, Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire..."
No. They shouldn't have TIME to drop out before I have a chance to cast my
Does the name Al Gore mean anything to you?
No. I think everyone "We" should have a chance to vote for their candidate.
Not just Iowa et al.
What your suggesting is simply a national primary.....the looming "Super
Tuesday" with 21or 22 states voting should at least make you halfway
happy<G>..... Nonetheless no typical slate of Presidential aspirants could
afford a out of the gate national campaign of the scope or breadth to truly
inform the national public....realistic on the ground parameters including
fundraising, candidate organizations and general support all point strongly
to the need of a few states providing the "proving ground" of the
wannabe's....If anointed king<G> I'd keep the traditional early
contests(tradition) and have a lottery (for each Presidential election)
allocating the order for the remaining states......regional votes spread out
over the primary season might prove most effective as well.
So you would rather have any vote instead of a informed vote that the
traditional rigor of the primary process allows.
The subject or context was primary elections.
I suppose I understand your frustration but it bears noting that a primary
election is less about voters choice, but rather simply whom the party will
present for the voters choice (a fundamental difference in scope and
practice)......realistically if one truly desires a early voice or impact it
requires early voluntary involvement in party logistics and politics. Rod
Remember the old system where the states sent delegates to the convention to
tout their "favorite sons" for the first few ballots? Things weren't
predetermined to the extent they are now. Makes me wonder why the wasted
time and money on conventions. The Delegates are committed, let them now
meet as electors and simply certify themselves, collect their souvenir pens
and go home.
Garage guy apparently had a favorite son in mind. I've got a HS classmate
in the race, so I jumped and voted for him.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.