Presidential voting - before Christmas?
By Steve Benen Tuesday Aug 07, 2007 7:59pmAs of today, the New Hampshire primary is scheduled to Jan. 22, eight days after the Iowa caucuses. South Carolina’s primary is supposed to take place 10 days later, on Feb. 2. Now, however, the calendar is about to get ridiculous.
South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson will join with New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner tomorrow morning to announce that both states are moving up their presidential primary dates earlier into January, according to a prominent South Carolina Republican who spoke with Dawson this week. That likely will force Iowa — always protective of its party caucuses as the first-in-the-nation nominating contests — to make good on its vow to move their date from next Jan. 14 into pre-Christmas December. […]
Dawson told his fellow Republican that South Carolina’s would be at least 10 days before Florida’s Jan. 29 primaries, but not on the same day as Nevada’s caucuses, which are Jan. 19, and 12 days after New Hampshire’s primary.
That suggests New Hampshire will be moving into the first week of January. Iowa would then be certain to move up from Jan. 14. To avoid getting caught in the holiday period, Iowans have said the caucuses would have to be in mid-December.
Voting for the 2008 presidential nominees before Christmas 2007. If ever there was a system in need of an overhaul, this is it.
Login or Register to post comments.
erm ... "Electoral College" ?!? *hint,hint*
Well if you look at the World Cup, the qualifying games are about to begin for 2010. Its long tough road to glory.
Seriously though, I'd like to see the candidates get ready to rumble sooner rather than later. Who likes waiting? Also, I'm willing to bet that this time, the winners on both sides will not be known until very late in the game. Its going to be fun watching the candidates burn through those 9 figure accounts.
Stupid. What's the point? Somebody must make money on this idea - there could be no other reason. As for reform - let's dream on.
Hey, if it could get Bush out office sooner I'm all for it.
I will be trying to decide just who would do the most harm to the US ... that is the man for me.
anon @ 5:
Rudy Rudy...plus he's real hot in a dress
Yes, Rudy would do the most harm for sure, he'd be W cubed, what with that fear mongering off the charts and all. But Romney with his 'sons not quite ready for war time'. Sorry, Mittzi, but that isn't going to work to well with the real patriots and their real sons and daughters in the real war in the real cluster eff that is Iraq.
My cats are wondering just how stupid humans will become.
Will they still be able to open cans?
Our entire electoral system is hopelessly screwed up. The "electoral college" is a rotten anachronism that should be dumped. the elections are solely based on how much money people can raise, and how much spin they can buy to fool the public. There isn't a candidate on either side that isn't a jerk.
Great....Hillary dressed as Mrs Santa...wait, Guillani dressed as Mrs. Santa.
hmmmm? rite before xmas.....aren't people usually very busy that time of year.....ok ..sure.
Either we have a "National Primary" all at the same time on the same day...
OR...
We go back to not reporting the results of each primary until the Convention!
The 2004 election may have turned out VERY differently had no one of known that front-runner Howard Dean didn't win New Hampshire or that fourth-place John Kerry had.
The reason for all this schedule shifting is because we announce the winners too early, so by the time later states have their primary, the choice is all but made for them.
I say we go back to not reporting the results of each primary until the Convention! Who's with me?
Just over 90 days from now, the first votes. Perma-election-cycle; perma-excuses for inaction. Should be perma-accountabiilty. Let's get the Independents upo front; and encourage teh DNC adn GOP Members to withdraw support from their parties; and create new blocks. Nintey days is plenty of time to mobilize the disaffected.
Mugsy @ 12:
I'm with ya, Mugsy.
capnmike @ 9:
Nothing is sacred - I'm not suggesting the electoral college is - but the republicans are even messing with that in CA. They will do anything for a win - they are (as I have said many times) uncivilized Zero Sum Social Darwinists (ZSSD's my acronym) - their win is more important than anything, counting votes, representation, democracy ...
If they win, it was all worth it to them.
Kos' irrational fear that someone other than California may actually have a little say in who becomes the Dem candidate doesn't help things.
Not that overhaul wouldn't be a good thing, I'm just worried about pushing the whole decision into huge markets where progressive voices can and will be drowned out by moneyed spin. But then the coasts complain that 'flyover country' actually gets a seat at the table, so...
Pshaw... they're starting to line up the 2012 candidates right now.
I m sick of New Hampshire and Iowa getting their asses kissed every year by the politicians. I live in California and it seems we get very little play in the primary season. The National parties need to step in and control this crap. Maybe a rotation system for primaries so that the same states don't always get to set the National agenda.
these states need to quit playing "chicken" with their primary cars
Stogoe @ 16:
Completely irrational. I'm a Californian and I've voted in every election since 1978 and my vote has helped to determine who the Democratic candidate would be . . .NEVER!
I haven't even bothered to read up on the candidates running right now, because it's unlikely that more than one of them will still be running by the time I get a chance to vote.
In the 2000 election, neither Gore nor Bush spent more than a token amount on campaign advertising here in Big Smoggy. They came here to raise money, then went back east to spend it.
But Iowa and New Hampshire, two small states that don't come close to representing most of America in any demographic category, have a huge influence. Next in influence is probably South Carolina, a state that takes pride in having started the Civil War.
By the time any large, culturally diverse state gets to vote, most of the candidates are gone and most of the few remaining on the ballot are just hanging on to try to qualify for federal matching funds.
It would be nice to have my vote matter on something outside the state once in a while.
And it's a lot cheaper for "moneyed spin" to be used in small markets than in huge ones, especially when those little markets aren't exactly "progressive."
From an outsiders (Australian) perspective - why are the states pushing forward their primary (pre-selection?) dates? Do they know something and are not letting on?
From someone who is active in the local body politic down under, I am utterly bewildered that people who are NOT financial members of a political party being able to influence a perticular party's nomination process. Have the parties in the USA cottoned on to the fact that, by allowing anyone and everyone to access the preselection process, the likeilhood of their "ideal" (I use the term VERY loosely here) candidate. I could rabbit on about alternatives (but wont due to being flamed and roasted to a well done crisp).
My core point is that it could be done in a better way that is more engaging to the community and actually encourage participation in the process rather than turn the community off 12 months out before the actual election.
I live in New Hampshire. The advantages of our primary is the candidates have to meet people and answer to them directly. Most events are small, usually no more than 100 people. I think there is value in that contact. We may not be as diverse as some states and there may be an argument for a small, more diverse state becoming an early primary state. A national primary would just start the TV campaigns earlier, there would be little incentive to meet the voters face-to-face in small venues. That being said, when I lived in North Carolina I felt that NH and Iowa had an unfair lock on the primary system, so I may be speaking with some bias here. I have been able to see the major democratic candidates 3-5 times each and anticipate that I will have many more opportunities before December.
Why don't they just hold the 2012 primary now so they can say they were the first?
The Electoral College is a fine institution. In 1876 it may have saved the US from a restart of the Civil War.
50% of the US population lives within 200 miles of the east and west coasts. A straight-up popular vote would allow the coastal states to have disproportionate power. (Of course, this would allow us coastals to reform farm budgeting and stop draining the Midwest aquifers.)
Having a 'republic' of electors with the ability to do last-minute horsetrading really is a boon.
Craig Shergold @ 24:
So what? Isn't that what that much touted idea called "democracy" is all about?
Democracy is a great idea (as long as you have a decent Bill of Rights and a division of power or equivalent that is), too bad Americans are afraid to try it.
How's about we reform this to have instant run-off voting once in all states at once?
That way, those of us who love Kucinich or Gravel or Richardson could cast our votes for them and for a "Headliner," without fear of "throwing our vote away."
Could pretty mcuh stop this ridculousness of each conservative state setting the pace.... and deciding the winner before I even make it to the polls!
Ah, well. Me keep dreaming.... and waiting for Democracy to come to the USA.
exit7a @ 6:
Nah, bad as Rudy is I frankly think Brownback, Tancredo or if you must go with the "top tier" candidates - Romney would be the absolute worst.
Rudy is bad don't get me wrong - him getting elected may actually somehow out-bad Bush (that's really saying something) - but any of those I named I feel would be *that much worse*.
Juba @ 25:
I agree with this completely.
A straight popular vote doesn't 'give coastal states disproportionate power' - not at all. You stop voting by state and start voting simply as *Americans*.
I mean seriously - we are voting for the President of the United States of America. That has very little to do with *WHERE* within these United States you come from. Who cares where most of the people are? Everyone can and SHOULD have an equal say in the running of our nation. That's part of Democracy dammit!
Most people would realize that the economy is crumbling. At the moment, it is understood that huge cuts to social programs will need to take place in order to maintain some sort of solvency. At this very moment, the U.S. is spending 7% more then it actually creates or earns within the world.
Either military or social spending cuts will need to take place.
You will also note that I have not even mentioned serious upgrades to the U.S. infrastructure are required as well.
Let's sort of admit that Ruling Class know these financial facts.
However; In addtion to what I've already mentioned, there are 80 million American's getting ready to line-up for the promised Social Security benefits which the Ruling Elite promised to the Lower Classes during the past 50 years.
Obviously; we recognize that all these promises will be impossible to meet. We already know that CNN is explaining that it will take a "Strong" president (not a promise breaker) to begin controlling the deficits.
Nobody is gonna take this sitting down. Those folks standing in line for social security are the same folks who protested endlessly during the 60's and 70's and almost brought America to it's knees.
So, the reason they are fooling around with "Election" primaries, straw polls, and earlier decision making or early selection of candidates is because of the Ruling Class not wanting any opportunity of street riots interfering with the status quo of electioneering.
The more you see politicians screwing around with the electoral system, the more you can become convinced that they too realize the huge potential of riots and discontent prior the 2008 election.
I truly believe that Martial Law will be declared within the next 2 years.
Without a doubt, there were already enough laws on the books to tackle any type of crime imaginable and that the justice system worked quite well for 250 years and survived every threat ever faced by the Ruling Class. Thus; there was no genuine reason for the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act was introduced because the Ruling Elite know full-well that the next few years will be "Take-Away" time in America.
Calm
I think that 1) the primaries should all be held on the same day. and 2) the electoral college should be abolished. Neither of those changes do I ever expect to see, but it would be nice. Oh, and the other idea about not announcing the winner until the convention would be a bonus as well.
Is this any way to elect a president? Ugh! I'm for getting rid of the Electoral college. One man One vote. Good enough for Iraq? How about here?
OK. As a New Hampshire resident, I say we bag the whole 2008 election and vote on our candidate for 2012 next January. That'll show everybody.
Mugsy @ 12:
OK but I liked your idea of the same day for all states better. The first Tuesday in March works for me.
Presidential voting before X-mas sounds like a cause for as many dashed hopes as letters to Santa.
The real problem is we keep letting Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have first pick when it comes to choosing the top candidates. That's how we keep ending up with the schmucks the rest of us have to vote on.
Geez, Hillary could win the primary and have time to go through menopause again before the national election, McCain would have time to develop Alzheimer's to go with his senility, Edwards would have time to mature and lose a little hair and become more electable, Romney would have time to change all his positions, and Obama could grow out of his terrible teens.
here is a novel idea. for national elections all primaries are on the same day. there will be no conventions since they are little more than an over produced waste of money with little of the oringinal purpose and meaning remaining .
for the national general elections all speaking engagements by the presidential candidates are true open to the public on a first come first served basis. no more screened audiences and arresting of tee shirt wearing people. all voting machines are the same, and a hard copy record of the vote must be verified by the voter as accurately representing their choice at the time of the vote. all votes will be counted. and all candidates get the exact same amount of money to spend on their campaigns. restore equal time. make it a fellony for "swiftboat" oprations and contributing to them. (by this i mean the actualy swift boaters, the ones that lied and and smeared with no proven facts. not the new catch phrase for negative ads that tell the truth as in rudy's case a few months ago. and finally, since all votes are verified and counted, the one with the most votes wins. hell if we can do away with the FISA courts, we can do away with the electoral college.
Download youtube videos direct to your PC, iPod, PSP, iPhone, Mobile, Mac..etc for free.. Its fast
Check http://vconvert.net/
Convert to more popular format like .WMV .MOV, .MP4, .3GP, .MP3 etc
Login or Register to post comments.