4 ms·

Why doesn’t another state move its primary up? It seems like an easy way to get more influence?

by mrfusion 5y ago

_dark_matter_ 5y ago
Race to the bottom. The political parties won't let it happen.
- mrfusion 5y ago
  We’ll the bottom would be everyone on the earliest possible day and then no one has an advantage. Seems like a good thing.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I'm not sure that there is any limit on the earliest day. In theory they could be any time after the last one.
IgorPartola 5y ago
The correct solution is to adopt approval voting and not have primaries at all.
- ClayShentrup 5y ago
  yep.
gruez 5y ago
I vaguely remember a state trying that, and getting smacked by the federal government in retaliation.
- donarb 5y ago
  The federal government is not responsible for presidential primary elections. It is the parties that are.
ModernMech 5y ago
I don't know about the Republicans, but as far as Democrats go it's actually a rule: Rule 12 Timing of the Delegate Selection Process No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in March or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 29 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 21 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 10 days before the first Tuesday in March; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 3 days before the first Tuesday in March. https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2020-Delegate-Selection-Rules-12.17.18-FINAL.pdf https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2020-Delega... This is what created "Super Tuesday", which is evidence of a race to the bottom that has gone as far down as it can go. It also shows that 4 states were carved out probably as favors (does anyone know more here?). In order to change this, probably a bunch of people who are being treated favorably now will get upset at losing their privilege, and no one in leadership wants to crack that egg. Seeing as that South Carolina, one of the favored states anointed to hold a primary before before Super Tuesday, played such a decisive role in the nomination of Joe Biden, I think the practice of keeping these states first is going to continue for the foreseeable future. Jim Clyburn of S. Carolina is widely credited of resuscitating Joe Biden's candidacy after his sad start in IA, NH, and NV. He placed a distant 4th in IA, 5th in NH, and Bernie blew out NV with 40% of the vote. At that point, Clyburn endorsed Biden, and Biden ended up winning SC. Then a bunch of candidates dropped out of the race before Super Tuesday (some who were doing much better than Biden overall) and support coalesced behind Biden. If anything, the slow roll of IA, NH, SC and NV allows the party to calibrate the primary process. If things start going a way they don't like, they can make quick changes like asking a bunch of candidates to drop out of the race (I'm not saying Bernie would have won had they not done this, I'm just pointing out it was obviously done, and what enabled them to do this was the fact that all primaries are not held on the same day).
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >also shows that 4 states were carved out probably as favors (does anyone know more here?). Probably not favors but codifying the status quo to get their endorsement on the rule. That said, I agree that it gives some states more power, but isn't completely useless. It allows the party to test how good candidates are at getting out the vote And adds some option for course correction.
walnutclosefarm 5y ago
There is a law in Iowa that sets the date of our party caucuses earlier than the earliest primary. Our primaries are not first, rather it's the party caucuses here that are held as the first selection event in the Presidential race. I am a rare Iowan in that I recognize that this system is dumb, and bad for the country. It's great for me - I have had the privilege of hearing in person in a small group setting every Democratic president since Jimmy Carter. I've talked with a couple of them. I can tell you from personal experience that Joe Biden's reputation as a "hands on" or "physical" campaigner was spot on - he embraced me as firmly and as intimately as any man every has (I am very rural looking, white male nearly his age, for the record). But for all that, the circus that is the Iowa caucuses is a stupid way to start the candidate selection process. I'd be happy to see the back of it.
- smegger001 5y ago
  I wonder what they would do if another state were to set state law specifying the same, or better still one week before Iowa. Would they both just keep moving their primary/caucuses back until it is set immediate after the inauguration of the last election or would the supreme court tell then both to knock it off and set the dates for everyone.
HWR_14 5y ago
Both major political parties have passed rules that any state the precedes Iowa and New Hampshire will have their number of delegates (aka votes) cut to 1. That is, if they try, their votes literally won't count (except as a tie breaker).
- nebula8804 5y ago
  We just need a big state to try it: if California or Texas tries it that rule will get repealed very quickly.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I don't see why California or Texas trying it would change anything.
    - nebula8804 5y ago
      Either party cannot afford to voluntarily give up so many electoral votes. If I understand it correctly, the # of electoral votes these states have give them enormous sway within the parties.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        That's not how it works. The parties have passed a rule that if California or Texas has one of the first primaries they get changed to 1 electoral vote (well, one delegate, which is the equivalent except there are 10x as many delegates as electors) to decide on the party's nominee. So they would lose what influence they have. The influence of big states within the party because of electoral votes is pretty small. The state's electoral votes are applied by the citizens of the state. I mean, yeah if you could get 50+% of Texas's voters to credibly promise to vote for the presidential candidate of the party that had an earlier Texas primary they would compete hard for it. But in reality, they're going to vote for the republican nominee. Same logic for California but for the democratic nominee.
        5y ago

Why doesn’t another state move its primary up? It seems like an easy way to get more influence?

_dark_matter_ 5y ago

Race to the bottom. The political parties won't let it happen.

mrfusion 5y ago
We’ll the bottom would be everyone on the earliest possible day and then no one has an advantage. Seems like a good thing.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I'm not sure that there is any limit on the earliest day. In theory they could be any time after the last one.

IgorPartola 5y ago

The correct solution is to adopt approval voting and not have primaries at all.

ClayShentrup 5y ago
yep.

gruez 5y ago

I vaguely remember a state trying that, and getting smacked by the federal government in retaliation.

donarb 5y ago
The federal government is not responsible for presidential primary elections. It is the parties that are.

ModernMech 5y ago

I don't know about the Republicans, but as far as Democrats go it's actually a rule: Rule 12 Timing of the Delegate Selection Process No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in March or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 29 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 21 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 10 days before the first Tuesday in March; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 3 days before the first Tuesday in March. https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2020-Delegate-Selection-Rules-12.17.18-FINAL.pdf https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2020-Delega... This is what created "Super Tuesday", which is evidence of a race to the bottom that has gone as far down as it can go. It also shows that 4 states were carved out probably as favors (does anyone know more here?). In order to change this, probably a bunch of people who are being treated favorably now will get upset at losing their privilege, and no one in leadership wants to crack that egg. Seeing as that South Carolina, one of the favored states anointed to hold a primary before before Super Tuesday, played such a decisive role in the nomination of Joe Biden, I think the practice of keeping these states first is going to continue for the foreseeable future. Jim Clyburn of S. Carolina is widely credited of resuscitating Joe Biden's candidacy after his sad start in IA, NH, and NV. He placed a distant 4th in IA, 5th in NH, and Bernie blew out NV with 40% of the vote. At that point, Clyburn endorsed Biden, and Biden ended up winning SC. Then a bunch of candidates dropped out of the race before Super Tuesday (some who were doing much better than Biden overall) and support coalesced behind Biden. If anything, the slow roll of IA, NH, SC and NV allows the party to calibrate the primary process. If things start going a way they don't like, they can make quick changes like asking a bunch of candidates to drop out of the race (I'm not saying Bernie would have won had they not done this, I'm just pointing out it was obviously done, and what enabled them to do this was the fact that all primaries are not held on the same day).

s1artibartfast 5y ago
>also shows that 4 states were carved out probably as favors (does anyone know more here?). Probably not favors but codifying the status quo to get their endorsement on the rule. That said, I agree that it gives some states more power, but isn't completely useless. It allows the party to test how good candidates are at getting out the vote And adds some option for course correction.

walnutclosefarm 5y ago

There is a law in Iowa that sets the date of our party caucuses earlier than the earliest primary. Our primaries are not first, rather it's the party caucuses here that are held as the first selection event in the Presidential race. I am a rare Iowan in that I recognize that this system is dumb, and bad for the country. It's great for me - I have had the privilege of hearing in person in a small group setting every Democratic president since Jimmy Carter. I've talked with a couple of them. I can tell you from personal experience that Joe Biden's reputation as a "hands on" or "physical" campaigner was spot on - he embraced me as firmly and as intimately as any man every has (I am very rural looking, white male nearly his age, for the record). But for all that, the circus that is the Iowa caucuses is a stupid way to start the candidate selection process. I'd be happy to see the back of it.

smegger001 5y ago
I wonder what they would do if another state were to set state law specifying the same, or better still one week before Iowa. Would they both just keep moving their primary/caucuses back until it is set immediate after the inauguration of the last election or would the supreme court tell then both to knock it off and set the dates for everyone.

HWR_14 5y ago

Both major political parties have passed rules that any state the precedes Iowa and New Hampshire will have their number of delegates (aka votes) cut to 1. That is, if they try, their votes literally won't count (except as a tie breaker).

nebula8804 5y ago
We just need a big state to try it: if California or Texas tries it that rule will get repealed very quickly.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I don't see why California or Texas trying it would change anything.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    Either party cannot afford to voluntarily give up so many electoral votes. If I understand it correctly, the # of electoral votes these states have give them enormous sway within the parties.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      That's not how it works. The parties have passed a rule that if California or Texas has one of the first primaries they get changed to 1 electoral vote (well, one delegate, which is the equivalent except there are 10x as many delegates as electors) to decide on the party's nominee. So they would lose what influence they have. The influence of big states within the party because of electoral votes is pretty small. The state's electoral votes are applied by the citizens of the state. I mean, yeah if you could get 50+% of Texas's voters to credibly promise to vote for the presidential candidate of the party that had an earlier Texas primary they would compete hard for it. But in reality, they're going to vote for the republican nominee. Same logic for California but for the democratic nominee.
      - 5y ago