California moves up primary, confirming front-loading trend

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The primaries should rotate in date every few years according to a set schedule, get rid of charges of 'favoritism.'

When you say this do you mean where the sequence of state primaries would be different each election cycle but still on different days?

I don't kinow that there is any way to force such a beast but I wouldn't object to that sort of situation.

Quite honestly the 1st scenario sounds a whole lot better than the 2nd to me.

At least in the 1st scenario Dodd could go and spend time each of the states before each one has their primary and try to gather support. He can gather all of his staff and team in New Hampshire and work that state until they have their primary and then move them all to Iowa and work that state. He may not win any of them but he would at least he would be able to talk to people in all of them and get his message out.

In your 2nd scenario he'd be left picking up CT's delegates on a National primary day and that'd be it.

He doesn't have the finances, time or organization to run in every state at the same time. He could opt to go to the larger states and try to win delegates there and then you run into the same problem people complain about with the Electoral College. But even doing that would require more resources than most of the minor candidates have.

Candidates in this scenario would have to opt for prime-time national advertising which would cost them an arm and a leg and we'd all spend our evenings watching commercial after commercial from 15 or 20 different people at a minimum. The more I think about that 2nd option the less desirable it becomes.

Yep, I'm with Fishin'.

Plus, of course, there's an obvious point to be made in re to JoefromChicago when switching from a Dodd-perspective to a democracy-perspective. There is a lot to be said against the democratic quality of primary presidential politics, for sure. But the scenario in which it will, at least, be the rapport between politician and primary voter that decides who will win the nomination still sounds a lot better than a return to the days when the nominee was indeed the product of "bargaining and deal-making" between party officials.

Successive primaries make it possible for voters to whittle the field down to the one who persuades the most of them. Iowa and NH bring the field down to 2 or 3, Super Tuesday yields the final candidate, thats more or less the format. But when you end up with a national primary, you do get that risk you sketch of a deadlock between two candidates. And you do then get, by ways of solution, a lot of dealing and wheeling within the party apparatus to win over this or that minor block of third-candidate delegates or to come up with a compromise candidate.

Its unfair that Iowa and NH voters have disproportionate influence, sure, but a scenario that leads you back to the smoky backroom mode of picking the final candidate is hardly going to be fairer.

Well, let's be realistic. A minor candidate would be a minor candidate regardless of the system that is adopted. Chris Dodd stands no realistic chance of winning the Democratic nomination under the present system. He stands only a slightly better chance of winning under a nationwide primary system.

fishin wrote:

Candidates in this scenario would have to opt for prime-time national advertising which would cost them an arm and a leg and we'd all spend our evenings watching commercial after commercial from 15 or 20 different people at a minimum. The more I think about that 2nd option the less desirable it becomes.

Is that worse than not having any say at all in what candidates are nominated by the major parties?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The primaries should rotate in date every few years according to a set schedule, get rid of charges of 'favoritism.'

When you say this do you mean where the sequence of state primaries would be different each election cycle but still on different days?

I don't kinow that there is any way to force such a beast but I wouldn't object to that sort of situation.

Yes. Again, by your own admission the minor candidates have little or no chance under either system.

But under the existing system someone can run in the early states for a few hundred thousand dollars. If they do well, it becomes easier for them to raise campaign funds and they can continue onward. If they don't do well they fold up their tent and go home.

The networks aren't going to give 20 or 30 people air time for free. The papers aren't going to give them all equeal space.

The only way to run a single national primary campaign is to buy time and space. Which minor candidates would even announce an intent to run if they knew they needed a $200 million war chest to run in the primaries?

Your single national primary doesn't give you (or anyone else) more candidates to choose from because less would enter the race to begin with.

Thirty years ago, the Democratic Party was so strapped for cash that they held a "telethon" to raise case, with Tip O'Neill as the surreal master of ceremonies. Neither Carter nor Clinton were nationally known at the time that each of them set out to run for President, and the primary system allowed each of them to gather funds necessary to keep their names before the public, and troll for other funds with which to run a national campaign.

Not necessarily. If a nationwide primary would, in an open contest like 2008, normally lead to none of the candidates receiving more than fifty percent of the delegates, then the decision would be left to the convention. In effect, then, the nationwide primary would establish a runoff system of elections. In a runoff system, the object isn't to win a majority of votes, it is to win enough votes to go into the second round. Consequently, runoff systems typically see a large number of candidates participate in the first round.

For instance, Louisiana operates under a non-partisan runoff election system. If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round, the top two candidates face off in the second round of voting. That type of electoral system has always encouraged a large number of candidates in the first round of voting. In the 2003 Louisiana gubernatorial race, for instance, there were seven candidates in the first round. The French presidential electoral system works the same way, and there are about a dozen or so candidates for the 2007 election.

If a nationwide primary establishes a de facto runoff system, therefore, we can expect a larger number of candidates to participate in the primary. That is especially true because all of the candidates who received delegates would proceed to the next round, rather than just the top two. Because of that, a nationwide primary favors candidates like Chris Dodd or Mike Huckabee more than it hurts them. And experience with elections of this type confirms that point.

fishin wrote:

The networks aren't going to give 20 or 30 people air time for free. The papers aren't going to give them all equeal space.

They don't do that now. Minor candidates are minor candidates because they don't have a lot of support, not because of the system under which they have to run.

fishin wrote:

The only way to run a single national primary campaign is to buy time and space. Which minor candidates would even announce an intent to run if they knew they needed a $200 million war chest to run in the primaries?

They need that much (or more) now in order to run a credible campaign. That fact, however, doesn't seem to stop the Bidens and Brownbacks of the world from running.

Setanta wrote:

Thirty years ago, the Democratic Party was so strapped for cash that they held a "telethon" to raise case, with Tip O'Neill as the surreal master of ceremonies. Neither Carter nor Clinton were nationally known at the time that each of them set out to run for President, and the primary system allowed each of them to gather funds necessary to keep their names before the public, and troll for other funds with which to run a national campaign.

As an aside to the thread - Did they? I don't remember this telethon! lol I'll have to go look on youtube and see if there are any clips from it. Something like that would be pretty funny to watch in light of current fundraising tactics.

In 1972, the Democratic Party even held a one-time telethon to help it erase a multi-million dollar debt (This may have provided the inspiration for the 1979 film comedy Americathon, where a telethon is held to prevent national bankruptcy). The telethon idea was created and promoted by John Y. Brown, Jr., the businessman who built Kentucky Fried Chicken into a worldwide chain and later became governor of Kentucky.

Here's some info -

Quote:

In 1972, the Democratic Party even held a one-time telethon to help it erase a multi-million dollar debt (This may have provided the inspiration for the 1979 film comedy Americathon, where a telethon is held to prevent national bankruptcy). The telethon idea was created and promoted by John Y. Brown, Jr., the businessman who built Kentucky Fried Chicken into a worldwide chain and later became governor of Kentucky.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Here's some info -

Quote:

In 1972, the Democratic Party even held a one-time telethon to help it erase a multi-million dollar debt (This may have provided the inspiration for the 1979 film comedy Americathon, where a telethon is held to prevent national bankruptcy). The telethon idea was created and promoted by John Y. Brown, Jr., the businessman who built Kentucky Fried Chicken into a worldwide chain and later became governor of Kentucky.

Cycloptichorn

You didn't give a source, Cyclo, so i can't say much, other than to note that i found evidence of more than one telethon, although specifically, none of the sources which i quickly found mentioned that they referred to a national telethon. However, in the case of the annotation mentioning a 1974 and a 1975 telethon, and the CBS News story archived at Vanderbilt and the confirming NYT story about a 1983 telethon--these all referred to activities of the National Committee. These could be construed to refer to a national telethon. I was still in the army in 1972, and would not have seen a telethon in that year.

What i did not mention was that i also came across references to regional telethons in California and elsewhere in 1960 and 1964. One reference specifically mentioned a California telethon which the H. Humphrey campaign ran in California in 1960. I didn't give references to those, because they weren't national.

Anyway, neither party is so impoverished today. It would be interesting to see the practice revived, though, if only to see who was willing to perform for whom.

First off, you are mixing systems here and they aren't compatible. If we went to non-partisan primaries as LA runs their elections then there wouldn't be any conventions to hold the run-off in. The convention concept would go away - conventions are, by their nature, entirely partisan.

Secondly, I disagee with your assesment of how well an LA style system would work nationally. To run for Gov. of LA for example, you shell out your $1,125 and gather 5,000 signatures on a petition. It also requires that 500 of those signatures must come from each of the 7 congressional districts within the state. To apply that nationally the candidate would need to cough up $50,000+ in fees and gather a minimum of just under 220,000 signatures on petitions spread out from all congressional distrcts nationally. In effect it would be creating a national pre-primary. Gathering 5,000 signatures in 7 congressional districts is one thing. It would cost candidates significantly more to collect them from all 435 districts. And all of that is just to file the paperwork to run. They'd have to do that before they can even start soliciting campaign contributions.

A minor candidate right now can focus all of their funds and energy on one or two states and try to increase the funds that come in to their campaign as time goes on. Buying ad time/space in New Hampshire or Iowa is significantly cheaper than buying time on the national networks. Under a national system they wouldn't be able to do that. They'd have to have all the funds up front.

The candidates don't need that sort of money up front under the current system.

That's cool, Boss, i often simply recount my memory of things, and don't necessarily source them. It only becomes an issue if someone argues with you. My search criterion must have not been sufficiently universal, because i didn't get a Wikipedia hit in my search results.