4 ms·

The Democrats have voted to change the first primaries (I know Iowa has a caucus) to North Carolina. That should change things a bit.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
*South Carolina.
giantg2 4y ago
What they (and others) should be doing is looking at nationwide same day primaries to remove the bias, not just shift it around.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Fucking thank you. I can’t believe the DNC lets their absurd primary rules stand year after year. Superdelegates are still a thing too, even after the Hillary/Bernie debacle. Tuck that one away in your memory because it’ll become relevant again 25 years down the road, even though everyone thought they were abolished after 2016.
  - cycrutchfield 4y ago
    What debacle? The more popular candidate won
    - NLPaep 4y ago
      A fair vote should be held. Showing one candidate with a massive lead, even if artificial, can influence voters.
    - jimbob45 4y ago
      Yes, I agree Hillary would have won no matter what. That doesn’t mean the DNC primary system wasn’t rigged. It still is. Staggered primaries mean earlier elections influence later elections and superdelegates allow individuals to steal the votes of voters for themselves. This isn’t like the 2020 election conspiracies. DNC primary rules are demonstrably unfair with no benefit other than to allow party elites to override voter choices.
      - cycrutchfield 4y ago
        You mean the party is allowed to influence the selection of the candidate that will represent them? And put their thumb on the scales against populist candidates from the fringe with rabidly delusional adherents? One could argue that the GOP primary process would be better off with superdelegates in order to avoid the tendency to nominate fringe weirdos with absurd populist policies.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Perhaps, but we'll never know for sure considering that the DNC leadership manipulated the process to tilt the scales in favor of their preferred candidate.
- testfoobar 4y ago
  The point of staggered primaries is to ensure that the eventual winner gets the majority of funds for the general election. Weaker candidates are identified early and fall out of the race - leaving the eventual winner with a larger donor base.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Weaker candidates are identified early and fall out of the race" Not really true. They are only the weaker candidates in those states. You have plenty of attractive candidates in other states drop out before those primaries.
    - testfoobar 4y ago
      You can approach this as a statistical sampling problem. Out of a field N candidates, one will become the representative of the party in the national election. Your optimization challenge is to identify the winner with high confidence while conducting the fewest number of tests. Each test exacts a financial and political cost on the eventual candidate. To have the most viable candidate in the general election, you want to do the fewest number of tests that give you the final result with high confidence. The staggered system of primaries does just that.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        "The staggered system of primaries does just that." It actually causes the devaluation of the votes of later primaries. Due to the difference in concerns of different geographic areas, you would have a shitty sample based on the current line-up. "Your optimization challenge is to identify the winner with high confidence while conducting the fewest number of tests." If that were the case, you wouldn't even do primaries and you'd just rely on the surveys, which arguably have better sampling (primaries are biases toward the vocal minority due to the low turn outs and not necessarily the overall voter pool).
        testfoobar 4y ago
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  No one wants to remove the bias, they want to shift the bias so they win.
- MarkSweep 4y ago
  The argument I’ve heard for Iowa being the first state is it somewhat levels the playing field for candidates. Iowa is a small enough state you can drive around it and meet people, without having the budget for a bunch of flights. The media market is also smaller and thus cheaper.
njarboe 4y ago
South Carolina - Too late to edit.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

*South Carolina.

giantg2 4y ago

What they (and others) should be doing is looking at nationwide same day primaries to remove the bias, not just shift it around.

jimbob45 4y ago
Fucking thank you. I can’t believe the DNC lets their absurd primary rules stand year after year. Superdelegates are still a thing too, even after the Hillary/Bernie debacle. Tuck that one away in your memory because it’ll become relevant again 25 years down the road, even though everyone thought they were abolished after 2016.
- cycrutchfield 4y ago
  What debacle? The more popular candidate won
  - NLPaep 4y ago
    A fair vote should be held. Showing one candidate with a massive lead, even if artificial, can influence voters.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    Yes, I agree Hillary would have won no matter what. That doesn’t mean the DNC primary system wasn’t rigged. It still is. Staggered primaries mean earlier elections influence later elections and superdelegates allow individuals to steal the votes of voters for themselves. This isn’t like the 2020 election conspiracies. DNC primary rules are demonstrably unfair with no benefit other than to allow party elites to override voter choices.
    - cycrutchfield 4y ago
      You mean the party is allowed to influence the selection of the candidate that will represent them? And put their thumb on the scales against populist candidates from the fringe with rabidly delusional adherents? One could argue that the GOP primary process would be better off with superdelegates in order to avoid the tendency to nominate fringe weirdos with absurd populist policies.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Perhaps, but we'll never know for sure considering that the DNC leadership manipulated the process to tilt the scales in favor of their preferred candidate.
testfoobar 4y ago
The point of staggered primaries is to ensure that the eventual winner gets the majority of funds for the general election. Weaker candidates are identified early and fall out of the race - leaving the eventual winner with a larger donor base.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Weaker candidates are identified early and fall out of the race" Not really true. They are only the weaker candidates in those states. You have plenty of attractive candidates in other states drop out before those primaries.
  - testfoobar 4y ago
    You can approach this as a statistical sampling problem. Out of a field N candidates, one will become the representative of the party in the national election. Your optimization challenge is to identify the winner with high confidence while conducting the fewest number of tests. Each test exacts a financial and political cost on the eventual candidate. To have the most viable candidate in the general election, you want to do the fewest number of tests that give you the final result with high confidence. The staggered system of primaries does just that.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      "The staggered system of primaries does just that." It actually causes the devaluation of the votes of later primaries. Due to the difference in concerns of different geographic areas, you would have a shitty sample based on the current line-up. "Your optimization challenge is to identify the winner with high confidence while conducting the fewest number of tests." If that were the case, you wouldn't even do primaries and you'd just rely on the surveys, which arguably have better sampling (primaries are biases toward the vocal minority due to the low turn outs and not necessarily the overall voter pool).
      - testfoobar 4y ago
Consultant32452 4y ago
No one wants to remove the bias, they want to shift the bias so they win.
MarkSweep 4y ago
The argument I’ve heard for Iowa being the first state is it somewhat levels the playing field for candidates. Iowa is a small enough state you can drive around it and meet people, without having the budget for a bunch of flights. The media market is also smaller and thus cheaper.

njarboe 4y ago

South Carolina - Too late to edit.