Shouldn't ALL conventions be contested conventions?

[catherine]

I've asked this question to my son, the political science major/law student: Why are the primaries set up this way?? It makes absolutely no sense, and it's clear that the system sets up people for the nomination that might otherwise never get it, and conversely, dooms people at the start if they might have a good shot if all the states voted at once.

Maybe it's sour grapes because I live in New Jersey, and our primary isn't until June, so by that time, if I had liked Perry or Huntsman or whoever, I don't have a chance to put my vote out there.

Just makes no sense. In effect, Iowa and New Hampshire get to pick the next candidate because every success starts a snowball and affects the dynamics for the rest of the country.

Can someone explain to me why there should be no distribution of delegates until the conventions, and if there is, why it shouldn't be on the same day?

[Alan]

Because the states are free to individually choose their method and timing of assigning delegates to those seeking national office.

If nothing else, it serves as a reminder that the federal government is a servant to the states who are, in turn, servant's to the people.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Those states sure are servants to the people, remember our elections are not until June (California is the same) because we WANT our votes to never count.

[Gregg]

Those states sure are servants to the people, remember our elections are not until June (California is the same) because we WANT our votes to never count.

Not sure I understand where you're heading with that thought ANM?

Catherine, Alan is right, its purely up to the individual states to decide when to have their primary. In the last election cycle I think there were 24 states that held primaries on Super Tuesday. Now that was a show! This year I believe there are 10 and it comes a month later than the last one. Ours (Nebraska) is in June as well, so I feel your pain.

Historically South Carolina has a far greater impact than IA or NH. SC began their primary process in 1980. Since then no Republican has ever won the nomination without winning SC.* Its kind of funny because when it comes to the actual election all three states combined only have 19 electoral votes. Any candidate could easily win an election without winning any of those states. Go figure.

*This year could break that string because Gingrich won SC, but the fat lady ain't singin' yet.

[bae]

I find no mention of the Democratic or Republican parties in the US Constitution, nor in my state's constitution.

The primaries are just mechanisms used by private associations, the political parties, to select the candidates they will offer to the public for the real elections. I do not understand why we subsidize these groups by paying for the costs of holding the primary election - we should charge them.

[puglogic]

I find no mention of the Democratic or Republican parties in the US Constitution, nor in my state's constitution.

The primaries are just mechanisms used by private associations, the political parties, to select the candidates they will offer to the public for the real elections. I do not understand why we subsidize these groups by paying for the costs of holding the primary election - we should charge them.

+1
Primaries are something I've never quite understood.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The primaries are just mechanisms used by private associations, the political parties, to select the candidates they will offer to the public for the real elections.

Yea the choice of which states go first may serve strategic purposes. I'm not sure how California would vote (it's plenty nutty in it's own way), but I doubt Santorum and the cultural theocratic agenda would work if we had an early primary here (really who are these candidates and who do they speak for?).


I do not understand why we subsidize these groups by paying for the costs of holding the primary election - we should charge them

money is the actual reason given for why our primary is so late. We can't afford the arms race of continually moving the primary forward (only to be topped by other states moving theres even further forward), and we can't afford having more than one election (one election for the president early on and then all the state issues and local elections etc. later).

[bae]

My local school district has a bond issue in the current election. They had to *pay* the county auditor for their slot on the ballot, to cover the costs of the election.

So I don't understand why the Republocrats get a free ride.

[Gregg]

The primaries are just mechanisms used by private associations, the political parties, to select the candidates they will offer to the public for the real elections. I do not understand why we subsidize these groups by paying for the costs of holding the primary election - we should charge them.

Ya' know what bae, I never once thought about it in that way. Not sure why, but I just haven't. One of those forest and trees things I guess. Thanks for today's light bulb!