He was never Gov though, was he?
1 Like
Oh, thatās right. He lost that race to Pat Brown. (Father of the current guy, not son. Jerry isnāt that old).
2 Likes
[quote=ādaneel, post:36, topic:89872, full:trueā]
If you want them staggered, why not have a random draw or something?[/quote]
State parties use primaries for far more than the presidential election, so imposing dates from above is problematic.
Incidentally, primary dates used to be more spread out, Super Tuesday is a bit of a look at what a joint primary might look like.
Again, an argument can be made that by having small states first it gives the poorer candidates a chance to compete on a more equal footing. Also, Iowaās caucus is a thoughtful process, and the stateās small size allows the final tally at the caucus level to be a form of STV; one could do very much worse.
I have no issue with this, but remember that ceteris paribus advertising helps less-known candidates more than well-known ones.
[quote=āBrainspore, post:40, topic:89872ā]
Then the solution is āfind a way to allow candidates to campaign in every state,ā[/quote]
Sure. As soon as someone figures out how that would work, and what to do about the idea that at the beginning of the primary season there are often many candidates (not just 2 or 3) so all of them would be running and need financing, we can revisit the idea of a one-date primary. Of course, if you find a way to let all those candidates run in all the states, you also have a situation like the one we had in the Republican primary this year, where the candidates all had sources of funds and wouldnāt drop out, so the ānot insaneā vote got split between all but Trump.
Do you think that the slate of Democratic candidates was very different at the beginning of the primary season than it was at the end? How about the slate of Republican candidates? How did Californiaās primary being late meaningfully affect the primary outcomes?
1 Like
A politically engaged Iowan might get to meet half a dozen hopefuls at a State Fair, each clamoring to persuade them why a vote for their candidacy will help their home state. But by the time Californian voters get to weigh in most of those candidates have dropped out of the race, often with the result that Californians have no choices left at all.
5 Likes
I didnāt read all the thread but I wanted to express my ideas at least for discussion.
- Treat voting like jury duty where there are penalties for not voting, probably done trough taxation to avoid criminal fine or charges.
1b. Open up the voting window treating all votes like early voting. Then after every state can call for a candidate make it a huge federal holiday where the announcement is made and the results are announced then (still before the electoral college allowing for challenges). - Overhaul of the census to get it as accurate as possible. Update the census every 2 or 5 years even if the districting is done on the decades to capture large population migrations.
- Use a math-driven approach to districting and take it out of the hands of political parties. Use a computer to churn out the map based on the census and then verify down to the local level. Use federal funding as leverage to prevent states from opting out.
Those are the three main things that bug me in the US - low voter turnout, the census, and districts being hand drawn.
1 Like
I think the direct democratic process probably looks good from California and similar places. And it all goes with the assumption that everyone has the same priorities and best interests.
But If the needs and wants of people in less populous states are different from those in the crowded ones, then a system where the votes of people in Wyoming are irrelevant becomes oppressive. It goes to the whole taxation without representation thing.
It has always been explained to me that direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.
2 Likes
We still need a better balance of power than there is now.
Iām sure there is a reasonable compromise between āthe most populous states are the only votes that matterā and āthe most populous states barely matter at all.ā
And there are other mechanisms in place as well. Even if the Presidency was decided by popular vote, an individual voter in Wyoming would still have 67 times as much influence in the Senate as a voter in California.
5 Likes
Yeah but at the same time WI, MI, and PA have declining population when adjusted for birth rate meaning they have too much say in the voting.
Pure democracy at least is accurate every single election instead of every 2 or so.
2 Likes
Does anyone really live there? Is the population of Wyoming above the margin of error in US population estimates?
Theyāll be fondly remembered.
(But srsly we need a better balance than the one we have now)
2 Likes
[quote=āBrainspore, post:44, topic:89872, full:trueā]
A politically engaged Iowan might get to meet half a dozen hopefuls at a State Fair, each clamoring to persuade them why a vote for their candidacy will help their home state. But by the time Californian voters get to weigh in most of those candidates have dropped out of the race, often with the result that Californians have no choices left at all.[/quote]
Let me rephrase my question. How DID Californiaās primary being late meaningfully affect the primary outcomes?
1 Like
Weāll never know, because they didnāt get a chance to participate in most of the selection process. Thatās the point.
3 Likes
But why is it important to electorally buffer citizens of small states and not members of minority races? (or genders or sexualities or religions orā¦?) Especially when the latter have much larger effects on someoneās life than just what state they reside in? If we want to be serious about protecting minorities from majorities, then whether you live in a big state or a small one is the absolute dumbest way to do it. And so yes, arguments that small states should be overrepresented that canāt adequately explain why actually discriminated classes shouldnāt, are pure bullshit.
7 Likes
Live in Spokane, your vote is worth the square-root of fuck all. 30 miles down the road in Coeur DāAlene, suddenly, the power of your Presidential vote doubles, and your Senate vote is worth 5 times as much.
I guess the lesson to learn is ādonāt live in Spokaneā.
(I wonder what moving from Fort Collins, CO to Cheyenne, WY does)
6 Likes
On the contrary, California participated in every aspect of the selection process well before we entered primary season, and with far more influence than Iowa or new Hampshire. Clinton was actively campaigning in California in mid-2015. By the time of the first primary there were 3 Democratic candidates.
In Summer 2015 Clinton/Sanders polling in California was 55%/5%. This dropped to 44%/17% in September, then 45%/28% in October as Sanders established a presence there and elsewhere. By the time of the first primary in Iowa, that had tightened, but only to 46%/33%. Bernieās big boost happened after the primary season began, and he was gradually taken as a serious contender. The scattered primaries helped that, and the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire are small meant he could get his message out to the populations there on a budget and use that to lever himself into the race nationally.
Iāve not voted in California (though I pay taxes there), I have voted in other big states (like Illinois and Pennsylvania), and I do not think we are the worse off for the early primaries being where they are, for the same reason that we are not the worse off for theatrical productions starting at summer stock and working their way to Broadway. If all shows had to start in New York it would be Cats all the way down.
1 Like
Californian voters had two names to choose from on that ballot, and by the time we got to weigh in a vote for Bernie was largely symbolic. As I said, oftentimes there are no alternatives left on the ballot by that time at all.
Why should some states get more candidates to choose from than others?
2 Likes
There is no national party restriction on who can appear on the state primary ballots or when they need to appear. That is local.
The numbers indicate that by the time CA had their primary, Sanders was a more meaningful candidate than he was at the time of the first primary.
1 Like
But any Californians who might have preferred Tim Kaine or Jeb Bush never got a chance to vote for them at all. Thus my position that those voters were granted less participation in the selection process.
3 Likes
They never had a chance to vote for Tim Kaine. They did have Ben Carson, Jim Gilmore, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich on the ballot. In February Bush was polling at 4% in California, so his presence on a February primary in California would have been meaningless. Only Cruz was anywhere near Trump at that point.
1 Like
But that goes directly to my point. Candidates were basing their campaigns and their decisions to stay in the race or drop out based on where the polls were at that point in time. Voters were basing their decisions on who to support on who was still seen as a viable candidate at that point in time.
Voters in earlier primaries had already shaped the choices Californians had to choose from. I donāt see how this is a remotely controversial statement.
4 Likes
