Primary elections

[Southern_Man 0]

Why does our government run (and pay for) primary elections? These are nominating contests run at the behest of and for the benefit of private political parties. I see no reason that these parties should be able to use the resources of the state for their own benefit (also has the side benefit of massively building brand identification)?

I'd prefer private political parties either run their own nominating processes (in whatever way they chose) or at the very least were responsible to reimburse the state for all costs associated with running a primary.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Historically, the structure and importance of the primary system as it currently exists in and throughout the US is a more or less recent construct, i.e., post-World War II. Up through the 19th Century, it was most common for general election candidates to be selected by political party organizations, either at nominating conventions or otherwise. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was the underdog going into the 1860 Republican Presidential Convention, but he was a wizard of a political strategist and tactician; and the rest, as they say, is history.

Nominating primaries came into their maturity as a means, at least on its face, of giving ordinary, non-politically active/connected citizens more of a direct (and thus more democratic) role in the selection of candidates. Philosophically, this is important to the notion of "democracy", but especially so when a given jurisdiction (state, county, town, etc.) is so lopsidedly one-party that securing the nomination for an office is tantamount to winning the general election.

It also is a means, at least in theory, by which a person who is not endorsed by the local party machine can still get his name on the ballot: in most states, as long as he gets enough qualified signatures on his nominating position, he gets on the ballot to run in the primary. He then manages to extend this to a primary win, followed by a general election win. This happens with a few candidates a year in the US nowadays; but prior to WWII, not very often.

Now then: has the intent been realized in practice? That's seems to be a key issue raised by your OP.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Historically, the structure and importance of the primary system as it currently exists in and throughout the US is a more or less recent construct, i.e., post-World War II. Up through the 19th Century, it was most common for general election candidates to be selected by political party organizations, either at nominating conventions or otherwise. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was the underdog going into the 1860 Republican Presidential Convention, but he was a wizard of a political strategist and tactician; and the rest, as they say, is history.

Nominating primaries came into their maturity as a means, at least on its face, of giving ordinary, non-politically active/connected citizens more of a direct (and thus more democratic) role in the selection of candidates. Philosophically, this is important to the notion of "democracy", but especially so when a given jurisdiction (state, county, town, etc.) is so lopsidedly one-party that securing the nomination for an office is tantamount to winning the general election.

It also is a means, at least in theory, by which a person who is not endorsed by the local party machine can still get his name on the ballot: in most states, as long as he gets enough qualified signatures on his nominating position, he gets on the ballot to run in the primary. He then manages to extend this to a primary win, followed by a general election win. This happens with a few candidates a year in the US nowadays; but prior to WWII, not very often.

Now then: has the intent been realized in practice? That's seems to be a key issue raised by your OP.

Thanks for this
I learned a bit

It is interesting to look at the history you post vs what I saw at the Iowa caucus's for the election before Obama

The organizations can get thug like at these gatherings

I would rather see a primary election cause the best organized, (or maybe the roughest organization) ,can get a leg up even when the majority would pick a differenct canidate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,661]

Quote

Historically, the structure and importance of the primary system as it currently exists in and throughout the US is a more or less recent construct, i.e., post-World War II. Up through the 19th Century, it was most common for general election candidates to be selected by political party organizations, either at nominating conventions or otherwise. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was the underdog going into the 1860 Republican Presidential Convention, but he was a wizard of a political strategist and tactician; and the rest, as they say, is history.

Nominating primaries came into their maturity as a means, at least on its face, of giving ordinary, non-politically active/connected citizens more of a direct (and thus more democratic) role in the selection of candidates. Philosophically, this is important to the notion of "democracy", but especially so when a given jurisdiction (state, county, town, etc.) is so lopsidedly one-party that securing the nomination for an office is tantamount to winning the general election.

It also is a means, at least in theory, by which a person who is not endorsed by the local party machine can still get his name on the ballot: in most states, as long as he gets enough qualified signatures on his nominating position, he gets on the ballot to run in the primary. He then manages to extend this to a primary win, followed by a general election win. This happens with a few candidates a year in the US nowadays; but prior to WWII, not very often.

Now then: has the intent been realized in practice? That's seems to be a key issue raised by your OP.

The "open" primary is a clear aberration. You should at least be a dues paying party member to get a voice in choosing your party's candidate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The "open" primary is a clear aberration. You should at least be a dues paying party member to get a voice in choosing your party's candidate.

Yes, I've always felt the same way about primaries.

[tkhayes 142]

I am all for cutting it all out. The Republican or the Democratic parties are private clubs. Membership is up to them, funding should also be up to them

It is a sorry corruption of the political system from the get-go and needs to be abolished. right from the voter registration through to the primaries and all that crap.

nothing but rubbish and serves absolutely no purpose except to continue the piss-poor political environment that we have today.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

The "open" primary is a clear aberration. You should at least be a dues paying party member to get a voice in choosing your party's candidate.

Yes, I've always felt the same way about primaries.

Andy,

Thanks for thei history. I understand but do not agree with those arguments. I cannot come around to seeing political parties as anything other than private clubs which should be running their own nominating procedures instead of using state money to use them and building brand awareness in the process. Of course as a long time supporter of third parties I have a good sensitivity to the issue as third parties are usually shut out fo this process (access conditioned on receiveing X% of votes in previous elections often).

As for needing to be a dues paying member, I think that's a good idea but it would be up to the party to adopt that standard. That doesn't change with open or closed primaries and using the public resources would seem to preclude such a standard (as it would amount to a poll tax).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The "open" primary is a clear aberration. You should at least be a dues paying party member to get a voice in choosing your party's candidate.

Yes, I've always felt the same way about primaries.

Andy,

Thanks for thei history. I understand but do not agree with those arguments. I cannot come around to seeing political parties as anything other than private clubs which should be running their own nominating procedures instead of using state money to use them and building brand awareness in the process. Of course as a long time supporter of third parties I have a good sensitivity to the issue as third parties are usually shut out fo this process (access conditioned on receiveing X% of votes in previous elections often).

As for needing to be a dues paying member, I think that's a good idea but it would be up to the party to adopt that standard. That doesn't change with open or closed primaries and using the public resources would seem to preclude such a standard (as it would amount to a poll tax).

I actually had meant to qualify this by changing "dues paying" to "registered". Maybe that's what Kallend meant (maybe not). I don't think citizens should have to pay a membership fee to vote in a primary, but I do think they should have to, at least, go on the public record as a registered member of that party to do so.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I actually had meant to qualify this by changing "dues paying" to "registered". Maybe that's what Kallend meant (maybe not). I don't think citizens should have to pay a membership fee to vote in a primary, but I do think they should have to, at least, go on the public record as a registered member of that party to do so.

I'd be okay with that if the state was obligated to run (and pay for) the primaries of parties with registered members. Unfortunately such a requirement would shut me out of the primary process altogether but allow Democrats and Republicans to continue to benefit from embedded advantages.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 18]

I actually had meant to qualify this by changing "dues paying" to "registered". Maybe that's what Kallend meant (maybe not). I don't think citizens should have to pay a membership fee to vote in a primary, but I do think they should have to, at least, go on the public record as a registered member of that party to do so.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Thanks for thei history. I understand but do not agree with those arguments. I cannot come around to seeing political parties as anything other than private clubs which should be running their own nominating procedures instead of using state money to use them and building brand awareness in the process. Of course as a long time supporter of third parties I have a good sensitivity to the issue as third parties are usually shut out fo this process (access conditioned on receiveing X% of votes in previous elections often).

I don't think killing off the primary election would have the benefit you hope. I suspect it would further marginalize 3rd parties in the general election, as well as make it more likely the two primary parties will simply nominate the classic insider type that drove you away in the first place. Or in one party locales (San Francisco, shrinking parts of Orange County), it would mean you'd see several from the same party on the ballot, drowning out your third party candidate.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I don't think killing off the primary election would have the benefit you hope. I suspect it would further marginalize 3rd parties in the general election, as well as make it more likely the two primary parties will simply nominate the classic insider type that drove you away in the first place. Or in one party locales (San Francisco, shrinking parts of Orange County), it would mean you'd see several from the same party on the ballot, drowning out your third party candidate.

While I do have some interest in seeing third party candidates be able to be more viable, it is really not my primary (pun) interest here. I just don't think taxpayers should be paying for the nominating process of private political parties.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

While I do have some interest in seeing third party candidates be able to be more viable, it is really not my primary (pun) interest here. I just don't think taxpayers should be paying for the nominating process of private political parties.

But they're not. They're paying for an essential element of our election process. Take it away and we'll instead have to pay for more runoff elections. And perhaps it's less true for you, but my primary elections include a lot of other votes to make besides those for the nominations.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I actually had meant to qualify this by changing "dues paying" to "registered". Maybe that's what Kallend meant (maybe not). I don't think citizens should have to pay a membership fee to vote in a primary, but I do think they should have to, at least, go on the public record as a registered member of that party to do so.

I very much agree however, it will not work as you intend in a cycle like this one because the Democratic nominee is allready picked. This would allow people to switch registrations

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And in 1980, Ted Kennedy opposed Jimmy Carter throughout most of the primaries, doing serious damage to Carter's campaign, withdrawing only shortly prior to the Convention.

Was it really possible to damage his campaign at this point? Couldn't Michelle Bachmann have beaten him after those troubled years?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

And in 1980, Ted Kennedy opposed Jimmy Carter throughout most of the primaries, doing serious damage to Carter's campaign, withdrawing only shortly prior to the Convention.

Was it really possible to damage his campaign at this point? Couldn't Michelle Bachmann have beaten him after those troubled years?

Short version: Carter was already in trouble, but Kennedy's pounding took an even greater toll - Kennedy won 10 out of 34 primaries, which showed that he was a serious candidate for the nomination. Also I must correct my earlier post: Kennedy did not drop out prior to the Convention; he insisted on staying in until the first ballot. That really sucked energy out of Carter's campaign , so that he left the Convention with a whimper instead of the usual bounce. And it also gave the Reagan campaign a good playbook on what weaknesses to exploit. Carter probably would have lost to Reagan anyway, but Kennedy's stiff opposition in the primaries probably made the final margin larger.