Is The Proposed 2016 Super Primary A Good Idea?

Western Journalism ^ | Feb 10, 2015 | Samuel G. Casolari

[Ray76]

After losing New Hampshire, Florida, and Illinois, the presidential candidate limped along with declining support amid calls for his withdrawal from the race. He was short of funds with a thin organization. He was a beleaguered candidate.

Then came the Republican primary in North Carolina, where that candidate, Ronald Reagan, defeated the incumbent president, Gerald Ford. Reagan’s North Carolina win reversed the course of his campaign, and he ultimately came within a hair of defeating Gerald Ford for the presidential nomination in 1976. Though he lost in 1976, Ronald Reagan set the foundation for his victory in 1980; and that foundation can be traced to the North Carolina primary.

A plan is now in the works to have a super Republican primary in the south in early March 2016. This primary may involve as many as five or more states. It is a bad idea, especially for conservatives. It is a bad idea for five reasons:

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I think all 57 states should have a runoff primary on the same day. Repeat until somebody gets over 50% of the vote.

The GOP oligarchy will not like that, because they will lose control.

Which is an excellent reason to do it.

[deport]

Seven Southern States Plan Their Own Super Tuesday for 2016 Race

Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi
and Arkansas Could Vote on March 1

[Vigilanteman]

The big problem is not the order of the primares, the marathon structure or anything of the sort so much as it is the allocation of delegates.

A farier system would award:

1. One fifth of the delegates based on electoral vote value.
   
2. One fifth of the delegates based on GOP congressmen, U.S. Senators, governor and control of state legislatures.
   
3. Three-fifths of the delegates based on the ability of the state to actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP presidential ticket in November.

   And, yes, Wyoming might actually end up with more delegates than Massachusetts under this formula. If it is unfair, then it is unfair to Wyoming, which has delivered 12 of 12 possible electoral votes to the GOP ticket over the last four election cycles whereas Massachusetts has deliverd exactly 0.

[SoConPubbie]

Seven Southern States Plan Their Own Super Tuesday for 2016 Race

Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas Could Vote on March 1

Good News for Ted Cruz!!

[okie01]

I think all 57 states should have a runoff primary on the same day. Repeat until somebody gets over 50% of the vote. The GOP oligarchy will not like that, because they will lose control.

Be careful what you wish for.

A national primary leaves the nomination open for the candidate with the most money -- the guy who rounded up the most donors with the most money.

Nine times out of ten, that will be the guy the oligarchy is behind.

The advantage of proceeding state-by-state is that it allows the under-funded candidate to focus his limited funds on one state at a time, proving his appeal and gathering supporters over time.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I don't believe that money is the overwhelming factor Progressives make it out to be. Given that criterion, how do you explain Milt Romley and Kurly Fiorina and any number of billion/millionaires who tried to buy an election with their own money and failed.

You either believe in free speech, or you don't, I guess. And money is speech.

[okie01]

I don't believe that money is the overwhelming factor Progressives make it out to be.

Run ten "national primaries" and see how many are won by the guy who starts with $100 million in the bank and how many are won by the guy who starts with $10 million in the bank.

Maybe money isn't everything. But it's the next best thing.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

In that case, George Soros wins.

[discostu]

There’s actually a lot of debate on the actual value of money in a campaign. While it’s clear the guy with the most money wins what’s not clear is if one causes the other and if so which one. Nobody has ever managed to come up with an equation that relates dollars to votes, which seriously damages the idea that money makes a winner. On the other hand the guy with the most votes generally has the most donors (which is how he gets the most dollars). So the stat seem to indicate that donor money is really nothing more than a very accurate poll, the candidate getting more people to give him money is going to get more people giving him their vote.

[okie01]

So the stat seem to indicate that donor money is really nothing more than a very accurate poll, the candidate getting more people to give him money is going to get more people giving him their vote.

The problem with the "national primary" in this context, though, is that the donor decisions and money distribution takes place in advance of any vote. There is no opportunity for the underdog to come from behind -- which is the circumstance that most non-establishmentarians desire.

[nascarnation]

Repeat until somebody gets over 50% of the vote.

I don't think states would be all that excited to have to run multiple primary elections with no real ability to know how many times the process would have to repeat.

[discostu]

If this election’s debate season goes anything like 4 years ago (hopefully not, that was so monotonous, and will be worse with both parties doing it) there will be plenty of time for underdogs to shine. Of course 4 years ago that resulted in the underdogs all getting a moment in the lead and then getting crushed in the next debate leaving the establishment guy who knew how to not peak too soon to win the primary. In the end it’s about getting people to like you, no matter how the voting is scheduled if you can reach the masses you’ll lead the money and vote races, and if you can’t you won’t.