Thread: Road To The White House

Originally Posted by JoshEarl

I can talk about this all day.

Please do.

I remember reading that the primaries got started because the caucuses were being too easily controlled by the fat cats. They're wickedly complicated as well and a primary is easy to understand.

I understand that people py attention to the earlier caucuses and primaries, but it is lso my understanding that 'Super Tuesday' is a bigger deal. (I've got that one on my horizon). What makes it so important?

X

If I can remember anything from my civics class, it has something to do with the fact that a whole bunch of states have their primary votes on that day, and that after it is over the forerunners are usually quite apparent.

It is odd and slightly disconcerting how some people in Canada are more concerned with the US political process than most US dwellers...

Originally Posted by ohlookaneagle

It is odd and slightly disconcerting how some people in Canada are more concerned with the US political process than most US dwellers...

Know thine enemy. JK

X

Super Tuesday is usually a couple of weeks after Iowa and New Hampshire, I think. A whole bunch of states have their primaries that day. Actually there are a couple of "super Tuesdays"--one comes a few weeks later.

This is actually what has led states to push their primaries earlier in the year. Candidates were sewing up enough delegates for the nominations only a few weeks into the primaries, which made the later states irrelevant. It also made the process boring.

The way campaign finance laws are set up, there's kind of a partition between the primaries and the general election. I forget exactly how it works, but sometimes a candidate will hit spending limits in the primaries and then be unable to buy more advertising until the general election starts. This is one thing that makes it hard to beat an incumbent. The incumbent usually gets his party's nomination without much of a fight, while the opposition candidates claws each other to pieces and spend all their money saying how awful the other candidates are. (Then the winner often picks the runner up to be his vice presidential candidate... )

I'm a little fuzzy on the origin of the primary election system, but I think I know what you're confused over. When our Constitution was first written, the president and vice president were elected by the state legislatures. The citizens weren't directly involved.

There has been a push for more and more direct public involvement over the ensuing two centuries. For much of the 20th century, each party's candidate was selected at the political conventions, which are usually held over the summer. The state party organizations would send delegates to the conventions, and through wheeling and dealing the delegates and party officials would select a candidate to send on to the general election.

This has gradually shifted to the current system, where the candidate with the most votes in a state gets the support of the delegates at the convention.

Theoretically, the delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose. But in practice they stick with the candidate who "wins" the state.

I don't think there was ever a broad-based "caucus" system in more than a few states. It went from a party-based to a popular-vote based arrangement.

I'm not sure this has been much of an improvement. In theory it seems good, but under the old system, the people making the decision really knew the candidates. Now we have a culture where a small misstatement or unguarded moment can destroy a candidate, who for all we know could be the better person for the job. There are pluses to both setups.

Josh

Originally Posted by JoshEarl

This is actually what has led states to push their primaries earlier in the year. Candidates were sewing up enough delegates for the nominations only a few weeks into the primaries, which made the later states irrelevant. It also made the process boring.

I think the reason states want to hold their primary earlier has mostly to do with money, not the political process, per se. It's important for a candidate to get an "early lead", so their spending is high in the beginning... ie, they spend their money in states with the earlier primaries. If a state holds their primary late in the cycle, some candidates have already dropped out of the race... the state considers that lost revenue!!