The Primary system--why?

[Guynemer]

A thousand ducats to the first person to give me a good, solid, intelligent reason for the continued use of the current Primary and Caucus system for nominating Presidential candidates.


Also to be awarded: to the first person to say, "State's Rights," a swift kick to the groin with a steel-toed boot.

[Boris Godunov]

What would be the alternative?

[MBD]

If you mean as opposed to a single national primary -- the current system does a better job of testing candidates in a number of different situations over a long enough period of time that their potential fitness for the high stress job of being president is vetted. Also, it gives outsider candidates a decent chance of taking the nomination away from the Washington insiders, who assumably would have a lock on a national primary because of their greater name recognition.

[DinoDoc]

State's Rights!

[Goingonit]

People should stop trying to pretend that the American system is great for BS reasons. Primaries are almost entirely useless nowadays, because they actually give the advantage to party insiders, and they are undemocratic, being restricted to party members.

Why primaries? because of the way the party system developed. Having national conventions was a step up from having candidates nominated by state legislatures. And having parties was a step up from having one party (democratic-republicans in Jefferson's time). But, like the electoral college, though it had a useful purpose in bygone times, the primary system is now completely unsuited to the way the country is run.

Is there a better way to choose presidential candidates? I really don't know. In Canada, the major parties all have a system whereby party members (membership is of course unrestricted) vote for their leadership directly. But the simple answer to your question is precedent and tradition. Like most of American politics.

[chequita guevara]

Primaries are better tha the caucus system. Previously, party insiders directly picked the person the party would be running. Now that person has to compete for the spot (though they get endoresements and money and all kinds of favors that make it much more likely that they will succeed, remember, George Bush was practically annointed over a year before the primaries). Still, I'd prefer that there were no primaries or caucuses, that all the candidates ran in one general election. Then Congress can pick from the top two, as was originally intended.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The primary system, as Che says, is a vast improvement over the "smoke-filled room" method of picking a party candidate that dominated American politics for most of its history. (BTW, history buffs: you can actually visit the original smoke-filled room -- now devoid of smoke -- that gave rise to that cliche. It's in the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago).

The original Constitutional system, however, wouldn't work. You'd almost certainly end up with a Prez and a Veep who represented opposite political points of view, as was already happening in the early Republic (Jefferson as Adams' vp, Burr as Jefferson's).

One minor reform might be to not require the delagates to be bound to their candidate on the first ballot. Such a reform might have resulted in Ted Kennedy, not Jimmy Carter, running in 1980 (a lot of carter delegates wanted to bolt to the Kennedy camp, but were prevented from doing so by the first ballot rule) and Mario Cuomo being spontaneously nominated in 1984, even though he hadn't run (as happened with Adlai Stevenson in 1952). Just a thought.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What would be the alternative?

The system everybody else uses.

If you want to have a say in who the party chooses you join as a dues paying member and vote directly in a leadership election.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Goingonit
People should stop trying to pretend that the American system is great for BS reasons. Primaries are almost entirely useless nowadays, because they actually give the advantage to party insiders, and they are undemocratic, being restricted to party members.

?

Actually, I thought that most of the American primaries were open to almost the entire state. You register to vote in one of the two primaries, and it's independent of actual membership...

Maybe I'm wrong, though...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Frogger


?

Actually, I thought that most of the American primaries were open to almost the entire state. You register to vote in one of the two primaries, and it's independent of actual membership...

Maybe I'm wrong, though...

You are. In most states, primary voting is restricted to registered members of the party in question; this is thus very much like the party leadership elections in a parliamentary system.

However, this may also explain the increasing dissatisfaction with teh primary system. Once upon a time, most Americans belonged to some political party; these days, however, something like 1/3 of all registered voters are independents (IIRC), which means they don't get to vote in primaries and thus have no say in which chowderheads they will be forced to choose between in the actual election.

[KrazyHorse]

Are there some states that work the way I explained? I believe I saw a news story at some point which described it like that.

Anyhow, the main problem is the same as the main problem with the EC system. Both the fact that small states get far more representation than they deserve and the fact that even huge states like California are all one electoral district as far as the presidency is concerned.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Frogger
Are there some states that work the way I explained? I believe I saw a news story at some point which described it like that.

Yes, there are some that have so-called "open primaries," but they're very much the minority. Also, states that have caucuses instead of primaries allow you to declare your party affiliation on the spot, rather than being registered beforehand.

Anyhow, the main problem is the same as the main problem with the EC system. Both the fact that small states get far more representation than they deserve and the fact that even huge states like California are all one electoral district as far as the presidency is concerned.

Actually, party conventions tend to have proportional representation among the states; it's the Electoral college that favors smaller states by having the number of electors from a state based on the sum of that states congressmen (proportional) plus their senators (non-proportional; 2 apiece regardless of size). If the Electoral college were proportional, Gore would have won the election because Bush's votes came from so many small states.

What is most undemocratic at party conventions is the presence of "super-delegates": party leaders and politicians who get to vote without first having been selected as delegates. Since these delegates tend to favor party insiders (because they are party insiders), they make it much harder for a challenger cadidate like John McCain or Gary Hart to succeed.

[mactbone]

Explain to me why so many states don't count electoral votes individually? IIRC, If two out of three districts vote Republican, all three go Republican. Why? I know some states don't do this, but the overwhelming majority do and it really confuses me why they add such an unnecessary step.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW, history buffs: you can actually visit the original smoke-filled room -- now devoid of smoke -- that gave rise to that cliche. It's in the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago

Thanks for the info! If I go to Chicago I'll check it out .

---

The reason for the primary system is to get the 'official' backing of the party. You DON'T have to run under the official backing, but it helps. And since the primaries are for picking the official candidate of the party, naturally you'd want to restrict to the party members.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Explain to me why so many states don't count electoral votes individually? IIRC, If two out of three districts vote Republican, all three go Republican. Why? I know some states don't do this, but the overwhelming majority do and it really confuses me why they add such an unnecessary step.

I've often wondered this myself. I suspect its to make it appear that whoever wins does so with a greater mandate than the popular vote suggests. For example, in 1988 the Bush v. Dukakis popular vote was 53%-46%, but the electoral college vote split 80%-20%, giving Bush a much more "presidential" victory and creating the impression that he "decisively" defeated Dukakis.