US Presidential politics -- First 2012 primaries moved to November 9th 2008

Okay, so I'm exagerating a bit....but only a bit.

FOX reports that both New Hampshire (Hi Don C.!) and South Carolina will be moving their primaries up to mid-January of 2008.

So, barring unusual results, the field will be narrowed to 3 apiece by 1 Feb and the nominee decided by mid-Feb. So its b___s to the wall for the next 190 days, and then we get to START the general election.

American Presidential politics will be ALL that matters, with report after report, blog after blog, rant after rant until we are all so numbe that we'll pull the lever for anybody just to be done with it....but its never done.

:dizzy:

It's hard to blame a state legislature for wanting to move up their primary date- many are otherwise completely (and unfairly) marginalized by early voting states. I don't really have any problem with a nation-wide primary vote, I just wish the states would all agree to a date that's later rather than sooner.

I hear ya. In my humble opinion, paper ballots are the solution. Hand-voted, hand-counted, eyeball-overseen, purple thumbs for voters.

If it's good enough for Afghanistan and Iraq, it's good enough for us. Let's show 'em how it's done, in a real democracy.

We've been slaves to the media-driven, American-Idol-type instant-results craving, for too long now.

Let's get serious. Identify yourself at the poll, get an anonymous, trackable, ballot, make your mark, get marked, and go home - knowing you'll wait a week to know who & what won.

That way, New York's and Florida's votes have the same impact as Wyoming's and California's.

Let the CNN, Fox, MSNBC et al talking heads earn their money trying to crystalball 'the will of america'. Why make it easy on them?

Well, I'm just pleased as punch that the candidates will be decided long before I get to vote in Pennsylvania.[/sarcasm]

Oh yeah, one more thing: polls open 18 hours, on SUNDAYS, the day-off work for most voters.

As I understand it, primaries are entirely creatures of the political parties rather than constitutionally required. (IIRC, political parties are not catered for in the Constitution).

If this is the case, I wonder if there is any way they can be forced to hold these events on a single day? As Greg plaintively illustrates, the current system strikes me as fundamentally undemocratic and with the earliest states effectively making or breaking the candidates, unrepresentative as well. It seems to me that this contributes to the stranglehold of powerfully funded figures on nominations and the influence of extremes in the parties on the nomination.

Super Tuesday seems to be step towards this "one day" vote but is there any real clamour for reforming the process? At this rate, candidates will be running before they are born (the dynastic system that is growing up will of course make this easier than it appears ~;p )

New Hampshire has a state law that requires them to hold their primaries before any other state, and I think Iowa has something similar. So when other states decide to push things up to get in front, they are just fooling themselves. The national parties aren't happy with this, and may disallow delegates from states that moved up. I suppose the best thing we can hope for is that the main parties bankrupt themselves on this election, maybe give a third party a chance in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

As I understand it, primaries are entirely creatures of the political parties rather than constitutionally required. (IIRC, political parties are not catered for in the Constitution).

---

Quite correct, the US Constitution makes no mention of any political organization. It enumerates the duties and limitations of the federal government's main branches, notes particulars regarding elections for the various office holders, and guarantees that government will not infringe on a number of the individual rights held by all citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If this is the case, I wonder if there is any way they can be forced to hold these events on a single day? As Greg plaintively illustrates, the current system strikes me as fundamentally undemocratic and with the earliest states effectively making or breaking the candidates, unrepresentative as well. It seems to me that this contributes to the stranglehold of powerfully funded figures on nominations and the influence of extremes in the parties on the nomination.

Super Tuesday seems to be step towards this "one day" vote but is there any real clamour for reforming the process? At this rate, candidates will be running before they are born (the dynastic system that is growing up will of course make this easier than it appears ~;p )

---

It seems like it is trending this way already. This year's acceleration may produce a backlash against the current approach and in favor of a national primary.

I would oppose this, however, as it would be one more arrogation of power and influence away from the states and into the hands of the national government. Our states are supposed to be more than simple districts -- but virtually every change in government since the 1860 election has served to make us one nation -- and to concentrate all power into the hands of a few hundred Washington politicos who are increasingly buffered against the annoyance of having to deal with the citizens of the divers states.

Sorry, Banquo -- you touched on a pet peeve of mine.

Heh. Very well-put Seamus.

And in the end, we are back where we were before 1910, with a few guys in a smoke-filled closed room deciding who gets to run. Only they're in D.C, instead of Sacramento, Augusta, Montpelier, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Heh. Very well-put Seamus.

And in the end, we are back where we were before 1910, with a few guys in a smoke-filled closed room deciding who gets to run. Only they're in D.C, instead of Sacramento, Augusta, Montpelier, etc.

---

Precisely. But when the smoke-filled rooms -- egads politics is an ugly business -- were more local, they were more susceptible to local pressure as well.

My other objection to primary elections are that they use everybody's money to perform a function for parties. Why am I, a registered independent, forced to pay for a service to Repub's & Dem's?

Voters list their party affiliations when they register to vote. Why don't the parties conduct their popularity polls via US Mail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I would oppose this, however, as it would be one more arrogation of power and influence away from the states and into the hands of the national government. Our states are supposed to be more than simple districts -- but virtually every change in government since the 1860 election has served to make us one nation -- and to concentrate all power into the hands of a few hundred Washington politicos who are increasingly buffered against the annoyance of having to deal with the citizens of the divers states.

---

I see no problem with a one-day primary. I don't want it mandated from on high though- it's an issue for the states and they should get together to agree on a day amongst themselves.

Or, they can just keep one-upping each other until the primaries take place the week after the previous presidential election. :wall:

And then once we get our elected turd sandwich (or giant douche), then we will get two years off until... yet another election cycle. Yay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I would oppose this, however, as it would be one more arrogation of power and influence away from the states and into the hands of the national government. Our states are supposed to be more than simple districts -- but virtually every change in government since the 1860 election has served to make us one nation -- and to concentrate all power into the hands of a few hundred Washington politicos who are increasingly buffered against the annoyance of having to deal with the citizens of the divers states.

Sorry, Banquo -- you touched on a pet peeve of mine.

---

Apologies for touching a nerve!

Were I a US citizen, I think I would agree with the idea of states' rights and your advocation thereof. In Europe, we have the rather obscure concept of subsidiarity - power should be devolved to the lowest practical level - of which I am a great supporter and the EU conveniently forgets about despite it underpinning most of the structural treaties.

Move it all back to the smoke filled (well, not much smoking today, but they do still like the occassional cigar) backrooms where it belongs - what do primary voters know anyway? Only what's advertised to them. Let the hidden men (and womens) make these decisions for us - "the great unwashed".
:furious3: