Did you even read the article? The whole point is to reorganize the order of states so that the earlier states better represent the make-up of the Democratic party.
Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t first anyone. Illinois is. Then New Jersey. Then New York. Then Florida. Etc.
Yeah, that’s an improvement. But an even greater improvement is, not having any order to begin with.
In order for a national primary to work, you’re right, we would need ranked voting. That’s not possible unless every state passes a law changing how primaries are run. That’s pretty much an impossibility at this time.
However, the order of the primaries is set by the Democratic Party and would be much easier to change and wouldn’t require every state to change their election laws.
I need more hardware related analogies.
America is so broken it hurts my brain trying to understand how people are even trying to think about how to talk about something that doesn’t even get close to a slight improvement in one tiny facet of what is wrong.
That doesn’t give candidates a chance to change positions, alter approach, react to the base’s feedback, etc…
Primaries in the US are about the populace as a whole learning about the widest scope of potential candidates, and then narrowing it down to a few that are most plausibly nomination-worthy.
Then instead of IRV, just do runoff voting. Have like, three primaries and narrow the field each time.
Now we’re cookin’ with gas.
Forget the state-by-state primary nonsense. Have three national primaries, a month apart. Winnow the field after the first two. Last one is for-keeps.
In theory, that’s a great idea. In reality however, the logistics of running three nation-wide primaries would be a logistical nightmare and would super expensive.
In 2008, at least 24 states held a primary or caucus on February 5, resulting in what was essentially a de facto national primary. Super Tuesday became Tsunami Tuesday. The situation was so bad for overwhelmed campaigns, party leaders, and election officials that the two parties worked together to ensure their rules for 2012 would help avoid a repeat.
This is part of why I am now fully in “fuck states’ rights” territory. States shouldn’t get to decide their own rules for participating in a national-level election. No. Everyone should have to do things one fucking way for the national election.
You want to fuck up your state elections fine, but when you’re voting on national things we need to actually act as one fucking nation.
I hate everyone so much.
Don’t knock it entirely… The national election rules being decided at the state level are why things like the National Popular Vote Compact are even a possibility without requiring a constitutional amendment.
Of course, for primaries, it’s even more muddied up as those generally are “private” party elections, not open actual elections, that the states help with for some reason or another (and this has only been a thing for about 100 years or so). In theory, the parties don’t even need to have primaries (or the related process, caucuses) at all and it’s perfectly legit as it’s only meant to select the party’s candidate, not the actual holder of the political seat. Hell, as recently as the 1960s, the Democratic Party was still using the classic “smoke filled room” process to select its candidate and not the primary/caucus system. Of course, this helped lead to the protests at the 1968 convention…
See my previous comment. It’s like you all have Stockholm Syndrome.
I mean, there’s two schools of thought here. The kind who believes the best way to change the system is from within the system, through the mechanisms in place, voting and what not and through incremental change.
Then there’s those more radical who believe the best way to change the system is to toss the lot of it and build a fresh one from scratch.
If you support the first one, according to you, you have Stockholm Syndrome.
If you’re for the second, according to most, it’ll probably be violent.
Not really an appealing choice.
Yeah, I’m not exactly the bloody revolution type. Especially since it went so well the last time it happened back in the 1860s (at least the good guys won that time, but it was still freaking bloody as hell).
This is almost certainly the wrong thread for this, and I’ve mused about this around here before, but I genuinely wonder what a civil war would look like in the modern united states.
I can guarantee you one thing, there wouldn’t be an army on both sides. The police and such would all be on one side.
The more I learn about The Troubles the more I think that’s probably the closest example we have for a model of what a modern civil war is like.
Since I just happen to have this from a discussion I was having right before I checked the forum:
North Ireland is basically solid red, and my understanding is that those are mortars and car bombs.
And I think that phrase sums it up. Civil war in the united states probably prominently features graffiti, swat teams, mortars and car bombs.
I’m not saying which way of fixing anything is correct. I’m saying the system is so broken that everyone seems resigned to only making improvements within the framework of the problem itself.
The only way you see of fixing the problem outside the broken framework of the problem is… bloody violence? That’s fucked up. That’s so fucked up, it’s like the most perfect example of how broken America is.
I’m even beyond that.
The government should not formally recognize the existence of political parties in any way, shape, or form. Period.
If some group of people want to form a group and agree that they will have a primary election among themselves, put forth a single candidate, and not run against each other, that is their own damn business. They can pay for and run that election with their own money and resources. The government should not legitimize them or recognize their existence, let along put resources towards helping them.
Well, you’re talking about how fucked up the system is, but you’re not offering ideas on how you think it can be fixed. What would you do? Do you honestly think calling another constitutional convention to fix the problem by throwing out the existing constitution and starting anew actually has a realistic chance of happening?
Agreed completely here… Technically, it doesn’t in that I don’t believe there are any specific laws or statutes recognizing the existence of parties, giving them protections, etc., though I could be wrong here.
And you know what, that’s pretty much what the system was like up until about 100 years ago, when a bunch of people thought it was “undemocratic” and decided to get the government to start running party primary elections and the like.
I mean, while I fundamentally agree that the problem is incredibly fucked up.
Is this not the same everywhere, in every country? If you want change, your choices are within the system or not within the system. This particular aspect isn’t abnormal, or any worse here than anywhere else.
No. Other countries aren’t beholden to 200 year old constitutions and states.
If the UK wants to change the borders of a city? Just fucking does it. If two cities next to each other need to be in the same administrative zone, they just move the county borders or create new counties or municipalities.
Scotland wants to be its own thing? A referendum mostly sorts things out. Brexit is worst case scenario with a referendum, but there’s never been even the remote suggestion that if things go wrong or backwards there would be a bloody revolution.
The EU is weighed down with bureaucracy, but over time it is a grand vision of improving the member countries and the continent itself, and slowly bringing those benefits to its neighbours. It slowly changes its constitution and the constitutions of its member countries, advancing human rights and such. Again, Brexit is kinda worst case, but even when a country wants to leave, there’s a lot of work put in to actually getting shit moving. And even with the EU wanting to send a message to other countries that they shouldn’t try exiting themselves, there isn’t a hint of talk about bloody revolutions.
