The Nevada bill to establish a presidential primary has been amended, to provide that the Nevada presidential primary would be the earliest primary in the nation. See this story.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
The Nevada bill to establish a presidential primary has been amended, to provide that the Nevada presidential primary would be the earliest primary in the nation. See this story.
I guess the Nevada SOS will fight Bill Gardner to see who goes first.
Since nobody can go first, given that two different states will have laws saying they go first, no primaries can be held in any state. A number of other alternatives will have to be considered, such as dictatorship, anarchy, and dissolving the union of states.
MORE SIGNS OF PREZ 666.
HOW ABOUT MERE CIVIL WAR BETWEEN THE COMPETING STATES ???
OTHER STATES INTERVENE ???
—
ALL MORE REASONS TO ABOLISH THE SUPER-TIMEBOMB EC AND ALL THE ROT WITH IT.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Calm down. Maybe it just means we have to dissolve the Democratic and Republican parties, not the union of states or elections as a whole.
If early voting is allowed throughout the primary season, it is advantageous for a state to go LAST.
States could release their early vote counts once a week throughout the primary season to make things exciting.
AND, if you combine ranked choice voting with early primary voting, then voters choices can be transferred as candidates drop out.
Here’s my proposal for Presidential primaries:
1. All states are open for early voting January 2.
2. Ranked choice voting is used in all stats, and votes are transferred as candidates drop out.
3. Every state must chose at least one day between Jan 2 and June 30 for in person voting; and all voting must be concluded by June 30.
4. States may release running early vote totals as they become available.
Oh, and if a state wanted, they could authorize late voting after the date of the in-person primary, and before June 30 for voters who hadn’t voted.
Some states don’t do in person voting at all. Some don’t do mail voting at all, preferring a caucus. The federal government shouldn’t dictate that they must start doing one or the other. Instead of top down centralization, I’d rather see the state and federal government’s both get out of the picture and let each party pay for and conduct its nomination however it wants. The only place I see for the federal government is to ensure states don’t make it too difficult for parties and independent candidates to qualify, although the federal government fails at that too.
NOOOO extremist caucuses, primaries and conventions-
see the ROT since 1776 / 1890.
—
ONE election day
equal nom pets
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
—
slight delay – Condorcet — RCV done right.
@ Derrick
The federal government doesn’t dictate the structure now, and I don’t anticipate the federal government organizing any state primaries. As it is now, the primary structure is based on what each major party recommmends to each state legislature. i don’t anticipate changing that.
The state legislatures organize the primaries because they pay for them. A party doesn’t have to use them, if it chooses not to. I don’t recommend changing that.
In fact, in the final analysis, the parties should determine how delegates are picked for their national conventions, and IMO, they ought to be free to utilize the vote totals provided by the primaries any way that they want, according to their own rules, to distribute delegates.
I would propose this: Divide America into three zones-West, Midwest, East. Only one primary per zone per week. That way they are spaced out timely and geographically and election results from one area aren’t over-emphasized by a biased news media. Just a thought.
Electors (defined in State Consts/laws) are STATE actors in nominations for public offices.
See 1989 Eu op.
One of the problems with holding Presidential primaries on different days is that often votes made in earlier primaries end up getting wasted as candidates withdraw. But, the logistcs of holding one big primary with many candidates on the same day are massive. IMO, a good solution would be ranked choice voting in as many primaries as possible, with the rule that as candidates withdraw, their votes in earlier primaries get transferred to their voters’ second place choices.
The problem is the states that offer to subsidize and administer certain parties in their nomination process. The federal government ought to rule that practice to be unconstitutional and tantamount to a state subsidy for some parties and not others. Once all parties are fully responsible for all costs and administration of their nomination process, they can decide on whatever rules they wish, not involving other parties, states or the federal government in whatever those rules end up being.
The dictatorship idea may work well, if the dictator is Trump.
Only if he gets to meet the fate of dictators like Gaddafi within a week of taking power.
Gaddafi was an American ally that crooked Hillary Clinton had killed illegally in a pointless military exercise. She celebrated his death. Because of crooked Hillary and her boss, the criminal-in-chief oily bomber Obongo, Libya went from being the pride of Africa to a hellhole with active slave markets. The oily bomber is responsible for enslaving more people than any U.S. president since Lincoln. I’d take a benevolent dictator like Gaddafi over any democratically elected “humanitarians” who wreck nations like Obongo did.
Yeah, whatever you say weird alt right doofus. I like my dictators progressive, like Kim. Except he’s not really a dictator at all because he’s democratically elected and genuinely popular. Have fun your mental topsy turvy world, wackadoodle.
I didn’t mean for you to get hung up on the example. It was just an example. How about Hitler or Mussolini as examples? I bet you’re itching to tell me how they weren’t so bad, but I’m curious to see if you’ll let the crazy out the bag and defend them like you do their little wannabe, trump.
0.1 IQ MORONS ALWAYS LOVE KILLER MONARCHS – FOR 6,000 PLUS YEARS.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
You tell em, demo rep!
@ Derrick
You are correct in the long run. Parties should bear the cost of whatever nomination procedure they use.
Who pays for caucuses in caucus stares? If its the parties, is it any great burden for them to just collect ballots on caucus days and make caucus day a primary day?
And if parties like caucuses, is there any reason why they cannot be done online, rather than in person?
The dynamic is different online. Some parties prefer in person caucuses or conventions. To be honest, I don’t know who pays for caucuses now; I only know parties, not taxpayers, should pay for and parties, not government bureaucrats, should administer whatever nomination methods they choose, be they primary, caucus, convention, shooting dice, creamed corn wrestling, smoky rooms, or what have you.
Completed primaries and polls seem to influence votes in upcoming primaries. A good voter wouldn’t allow it to influence their vote. That is one issue never addressed: stupid voters. We talk about ballot access, primaries, jurisdiction issues, census, and lots of over things here; but never talk about the number one problem in America: dumb, ignorant stupid voters.
What we really need to do is bring back poll taxes, literacy tests and grandfather clauses.
“Completed primaries and polls seem to influence votes in upcoming primaries”
Which is one reason that I recommend ranked choice voting for Presidential primaries. That way, votes in early primaries wouldn’t be wasted when candidates drop out.
If it wasn’t for ignorant, dumb, stupid voters, the Democrats would be a minor party.