Community >> View Post
·
Post By
mtyoung

In Reply To
Omar Karindu

Subj: Re: US Primary Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:41:35 pm CST (Viewed 3 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US Primary Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:50:23 am CST (Viewed 3 times)

Previous Post

> > Of course, the system you propose would tend to favor the (perceived as) more liberal East coast early on, and I suspect Republican primary voters west of the Mississippi might complain that more conservative candidates were being pushed out by the earlier primaries.
>
> So if a understand you right, you are saying that my proposal would pick more liberal candidates?

No -- I use the words "perceived as" and state that certain people "might complain." Their complaints may well be empty or factitious, but you would still see them arising as voluble political opposition to your plan. That was my only point.

> A key point is that the east coast isn't liberal, its the northeast. The southeast is conservative. Of the first primaries, you would have a mixture of both northern and southern states. Plus, this is just the primaries, so Republicans would only vote for Republicans.
>
> Are you suggesting that the western Republicans are more conservative than the eastern (and southern) Republicans? I don't think thats true.

No, I'm saying that Western Republican rhetoric tends to involve a great deal of resentment of the East coast in general, and that such rhetoric would become the mode of opposition to the reform you suggest.

> Are you saying that the degree to which a Republican is conservative can be generalized based on what state they live in? I don't think thats true.

No, I'm not; I'm talking about perception, not reality, in a country and world where people vote for perception more often than for reality.

> I don't think that where a candidate is from matters that much in the primaries. The fact that McCain is from Arizona probably isn't that big of a deal. If you could measure someones political ideas from where they live then your statement would be true, but you can't. Most states are highly contested, with about 50% Dems and 50% Reps. Look at Colorado, 1.1 million voted for Bush, 1 million voted for Kerry. So if someone is from Colorado, would you say they are Republican or Democrat? You can't make an accurate guess there.
>
> Also, it wouldn't strictly be a east to west schedule and you would have to jump around alot.
>
> The states this would hurt the most are the midwest/rockies region states, since their primaries would be held last. But their primaries are already really insignificant and they don't have a high population. So if a candidate swept the earlier primaries and would win without those states might just skip them all together. But thats really what they do now. One way to fix this is to just make it a requirement that all viable candidates visit each state at least once.

Actually, it'd hurt the West coast the most. The midwestern states have years on California, for example. And you might as well not bother voting if you live in Hawaii or Alaska.

> And let me say, I just made that primary idea up on the spot, I'm sure there are flaws to the idea (like candidates ignoring the midwest/newest states). But I don't think you can say this idea is biased since there is so much diversity in order of the primaries.
>
> I could be wrong.

I'm not calling it biased, I'm saying that it'd be accused of regionalism if someone actually tried to make it happen.

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey

I'm still not understanding your point. I blame myself entirely.

> > > Of course, the system you propose would tend to favor the (perceived as) more liberal East coast early on, and I suspect Republican primary voters west of the Mississippi might complain that more conservative candidates were being pushed out by the earlier primaries.
> >
> > So if a understand you right, you are saying that my proposal would pick more liberal candidates?
>
> No -- I use the words "perceived as" and state that certain people "might complain." Their complaints may well be empty or factitious, but you would still see them arising as voluble political opposition to your plan. That was my only point.

Who is going to complain? The conservative republican west of the mississippi? I still don't get why. As of right now, midwestern states don't really have any political say now in terms of primaries. No one talks about having to win the Nevada caucus.

Really, the only people who would lose political power in this plan are Iowa and New Hampshire. Everyone else really either gains power or stays the same.

> > Are you suggesting that the western Republicans are more conservative than the eastern (and southern) Republicans? I don't think thats true.
>
> No, I'm saying that Western Republican rhetoric tends to involve a great deal of resentment of the East coast in general, and that such rhetoric would become the mode of opposition to the reform you suggest.

I've never heard of an "east coast" bias in terms of politics. I've only heard the term used in sports. And it east coast is meant to mean New York and its surrounding area.

And are there groups of republicans that identify themselves by region of the country? I would think that republicans would divide based on issues.

> > Are you saying that the degree to which a Republican is conservative can be generalized based on what state they live in? I don't think thats true.
>
> No, I'm not; I'm talking about perception, not reality, in a country and world where people vote for perception more often than for reality.

So you are saying that people perceive that there a degree to which a Republican is conservative can be generalized based on what state they live in? I still don't think thats true.

> > The states this would hurt the most are the midwest/rockies region states, since their primaries would be held last. But their primaries are already really insignificant and they don't have a high population. So if a candidate swept the earlier primaries and would win without those states might just skip them all together. But thats really what they do now. One way to fix this is to just make it a requirement that all viable candidates visit each state at least once.
>
> Actually, it'd hurt the West coast the most. The midwestern states have years on California, for example. And you might as well not bother voting if you live in Hawaii or Alaska.

California was the 31st state. It would come before the states like Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Colordao, etc.

And the reason you would vote if you were on Hawaii and Alaska is because there would be 5 state primaries on that day. Arizonia, New Mexico, and Oklahoma would hvae their primaries on that day too. Thats 29 electoral votes.

And its not like Hawaii and Alaska have huge turn outs to their current primaries.

> I'm not calling it biased, I'm saying that it'd be accused of regionalism if someone actually tried to make it happen.

So you are saying that others will accuse it of being bias?

It wouldn't be regionalism because its not a straight line from one region to the other. The west coast states were formed before the plain states, the midwest was formed before flordia, etc.

One primary would consist of Michigan, Flordia, Texas, Iowas, and Wisconsin. They aren't close in terms of geographical regions, yet they are diverse in terms of culture, races, religion, economic backgrounds, politics, etc.

I also thought about how to implement this plan. Each party would have to agree to this schedule. They would tell the states the schedule. If a state doesn't like his date and threatens to boycott, then the party must tell them that won't count their votes. This implementation would rely on the two major parties agreeing to do this together and stick to the punishments.

Let me say that there are a number of things I don't know or understand about the current primary system.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software