Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's a matter of picking your poison though. You could equally argue that in a poll scenario, the "machine politics" guy could flood the caucus with people who just show up to vote in the straw poll, while ignoring the local and state election stuff that are going on as well.
Sure. And if you could "equally argue" it, that would imply that those upset have a valid complaint even if it's one that you don't share or come down on the other side of.
Hence why it's picking your poison rather than "system A is fair and system B is unfair". Both methods have pros and cons, but I don't see any of the other candidates complaining that the primary system in unfair/rigged/whatever because it allows someone like Trump to gain a relative delegate count significantly greater than his relative popular vote count. There's a reason why Trump has done well in primary states (and most well in open primary states), and very poorly in caucus states. The point is that all the candidates know the rules going in, and know what differences there are between different states, and should therefore plan for those differences in their campaign.
Trumps "plan" seems to be to take advantage of the rules that benefit him, and then complain about the ones that don't. And if he can convince enough people that those other rules are unfair, that's good on him. But that's not going to stop me pointing out that his claims of unfairness are totally absurd.
Quote:
Quote:
Heck. If I had my druthers, I'd argue for changes in the other direction. Anyone can register to vote and vote right away, but you can only participate in the party primary if you've been registered with the party for X years, and have actively voted as a member of that party in the last X elections, including purely state or local level votes
While I don't agree with that, what you're arguing for is essentially a "very" closed primary.
Yup. I don't think it's unreasonable that one actually show some history voting for a given party before they get to have a say in who that party nominates. Nothing requires you to vote any given way in an actual election, of course, but I think that a person should pick a party that best represents their positions first, and then work within that party in conjunction with other people with similar positions to work out a platform and nominate candidates who best represent that platform. The danger in allowing too open a system (which is where we've been headed for some time), is exactly what is happening now. Someone comes along with a populist message, but little or no alignment with the core principles of a party, and is able to bring in a whole bunch of people who also have little or no association with the core principles of that party to vote for him in the primaries, effectively overriding the party platform itself in one motion.
But then, I'm generally a big fan of the idea of having blocks in place to prevent mass mob actions based on the whim of the moment. Better to have slow gradual changes than fast ones that you'll likely regret later.
Quote:
I'm saying that the caucus system is shit. The whole "Let's have a narrow window where you have to hang around through a process rather than just ticking a box sometime between 6am and 7pm and going on your way" thing that depresses turnout even among party loyalists. But having the state party pay for meeting in a community center to throw index cards into a hat is a lot cheaper than having the state government pay for an actual election so we keep getting stuck with them.
I don't see how it's "getting stuck" with them in any case. I think we sometimes forget that the national convention is a convention of the state parties. They send their delegations to the convention, meet with other state delegations, hash out the rules for the convention itself, come up with a platform for the national party (make changes to existing platform generally), and ultimately nominate someone to run for president. The power is supposed to be in those state parties, not some monolithic national machine. Now, obviously, since the development of national media (TV really), having a more national message has become somewhat of a requirement for a party. Folks in Iowa can see how things are done in Nebraska, for example, and may have an opinion on it. But it does not change the fact that the system is ultimately about a set of state delegations, not one big national delegation. There's nothing at all "broken" with systems like the one in CO. We've just gotten used to the more election day type primary process over time.
This is something Trump doesn't seem to understand at all. And it's why he sucks at caucuses. Those, by design, require pretty significant effort on those who participate. And no, it's not the "party machine" that usually dominates these things. It's the activists in the party who do. You know who else did well in caucuses? Rand Paul (and his father before him). It's about getting a very strong amount of momentum at the local grassroots level. Something Trump doesn't know how to do, presumably because he might have to dirty his hands talking with and *gasp* maybe shaking hands with, the "little people". He honestly seems to be running his campaign like he's running in a general election. But he's not. He's trying to win the nomination of a political party. So it's not about popular vote among the whole of the people. It's about alignment with what the party thinks best represents their platform, and who they think has the best chance of winning.
How that is determined can vary by state, but I'd argue strongly that open primaries for delegates who are then required to vote for the candidate based on popular vote tallies, is the least likely to result in those delegates actually representing the state party at the convention, and most likely to represent broader national issues which may be influential at the moment and can bring lots of voters to the polls on primary day. A closed primary at least limits that somewhat. A caucus is even better. Again, if you think it's important for the state delegation to actually represent the issues and agenda of the state party, rather than just be a cookie cutter national issues delegation.
The system has been adjusted over time, primarily out of a belief that a contested convention looks bad in the media (and especially on TV). But the reality is that historically, a contested convention is precisely what you *should* have every time. There shouldn't be pledged delegates. You should have to go to each state, and go to the local party activists, and tell them what you'd do for them and their state if you win, and then get those people to agree to run as delegates on your behalf, and then get people to vote for them (whether in a caucus or primary) to be in the delegation. If you've done this properly, you don't need them to be forced by rules to vote for you. They'll do it because they actually believe you're the best candidate for the job. And people will select them to be in the delegation because they believe you're the best candidate for the job (or at least, that the selection criteria of that delegate will pick someone they believe is best for the job).
Burdensome? Heck ya! But voting is not so much a right as a responsibility. Far too many people just think showing up on election day and dropping a ballot in the box means they've done their civic duty. But the problem with that is that it makes the results of the election too affected by media. He who gets the best press will tend to win. Short attention span voters aren't likely to learn any more about the candidates than what they maybe glean from a few minutes a night of news coverage. Maybe. Obviously, we have to allow that sort of thing for general elections, because that's the only way to manage them effectively. But for the nomination process itself? I see nothing wrong with requiring far more effort on the part of those who participate. If for no other reason than to weed out the drive by voters from the process. If you have to spend time and effort just casting a vote, then you're more likely to spend time and effort learning about the candidates.
Well, in theory anyway. No system is perfect.