2016 elections - because it's never too early

[alfred russel]

Seems a decent investment of (minimal) resources. For whatever reason those hamlets get a disproportionate media time. They even get reported here.

Is there any kind of pressure to reform the US primary system? A bunch of candidates are going to drop off after today, and that's just after what? Two states that account for roughly 1.5% of the electorate?

There are two topics raised. The first is the New Hampshire hamlet that voted. Basically in New Hampshire the rule is you vote today, and one "town" realized it could get in the news all day if everyone voted at midnight, as they could then close the polls and report results (with 100% turnout, no reason not to). So all 9 people voted at midnight, and all day those are our "results" from New Hampshire. John Kasich knew they planned to do this, and apparently contacted all 9 voters, and got three of them to support him, and won the republican side which had 5 of the 9 voters. I don't know that really means or harms anything, though probably a good move by Kasich.

The second is whether states should vote one at a time, first Iowa, then New Hampshire, etc. There are drawbacks, but I think it is the best way. It is a huge country, so if all the primaries were at once only candidates with a lot of money could effectively compete. Also, if you can't finish in say the top 3 of either early state, that is a pretty good indication that you need to get out because voters just don't like you. The drawn out process also has the benefits of focusing more scrutiny on the frontrunners as they emerge. Suppose the entire country voted last week. Rubio may never have been put under the gun like he was in the last debate, and we might not have learned that he is rather robotic (or did he just have a bad night? We still have future debates to find out)

[DGuller]

There is another video of Rubio repeating himself verbatim.  It's much more minor, and was just a verbal tick more than anything, but it did make me think about the effect of Christie's attack.  The debate moment was one thing, but if Rubio is now second-guessing himself every time he speaks on camera, there could be more gifts waiting for us in store.  When people used to doing things in a rote way try to improvise more, it usually works very badly at first.

[alfred russel]

There is another video of Rubio repeating himself verbatim.  It's much more minor, and was just a verbal tick more than anything, but it did make me think about the effect of Christie's attack.  The debate moment was one thing, but if Rubio is now second-guessing himself every time he speaks on camera, there could be more gifts waiting for us in store.  When people used to doing things in a rote way try to improvise more, it usually works very badly at first.

I remember when Sarah Palin first got picked as VP. She had her introductory speech--no one knew who she was so there was a ton in interest and scrutiny--and by all accounts she totally nailed it. It was only when she started giving interviews and not reading pre written materials that people realized she was the Sarah Palin we know today.

[Valmy]

The second is whether states should vote one at a time, first Iowa, then New Hampshire, etc. There are drawbacks, but I think it is the best way. It is a huge country, so if all the primaries were at once only candidates with a lot of money could effectively compete. Also, if you can't finish in say the top 3 of either early state, that is a pretty good indication that you need to get out because voters just don't like you. The drawn out process also has the benefits of focusing more scrutiny on the frontrunners as they emerge. Suppose the entire country voted last week. Rubio may never have been put under the gun like he was in the last debate, and we might not have learned that he is rather robotic (or did he just have a bad night? We still have future debates to find out)

I don't think this applies in the internet age. Every candidate has almost unlimited opportunity to reach every single community in the country for virtually no cost. Subjecting the candidates to the brutal never-ending slog of on the ground campaigning across Iowa and New Hampshire along with all these debates for months on end seems like a poor way to select a President to me. We are trying to find an excellent administrator and leader with goals we support. But what kind of ace administrator is going to want to do all that shit? There should be a three month window for campaigning and the vote should be nationwide. That way everybody just puts there shit out there and anybody who cares can read it and make a choice, and they easily can do that. National issues will then decide a national election rather than somebody's opinion on Iowa Corn Subsidies, and other local concerns that should be state and local issues anyway, being a big factor.

But at the end of the day it does not matter. The primary system is not regulated by law really. Hell we have non-secret ballots in the Caucus system.

[DGuller]

I can see the benefits of staggering vote, but it has to be done in a far less ad hoc way.  It can't be Iowa and New Hampshire every single time.  Maybe have five super Tuesdays, the order of which is staggered by random draw.  If nothing else, we would at least not be forced to put ethanol in our cars with that primary system.

[alfred russel]

I don't think this applies in the internet age. Every candidate has almost unlimited opportunity to reach every single community in the country for virtually no cost. Subjecting the candidates to the brutal never-ending slog of on the ground campaigning across Iowa and New Hampshire along with all these debates for months on end seems like a poor way to select a President to me. We are trying to find an excellent administrator and leader with goals we support. But what kind of ace administrator is going to want to do all that shit? There should be a three month window for campaigning and the vote should be nationwide. That way everybody just puts there shit out there and anybody who cares can read it and make a choice, and they easily can do that. National issues will then decide a national election rather than somebody's opinion on Iowa Corn Subsidies, and other local concerns that should be state and local issues anyway, being a big factor.

I suspect you would be very surprised how many people are either not on the internet or only minimally on it.

But a major problem is that we wouldn't have a way to winnow down the candidates. To take the GOP race for instance, Trump is a very heavy underdog in the betting markets, and Cruz is also an underdog. However, if you look at national polling, Trump is #1 and I think Cruz #2 (not sure on that). The reason is that the "reasonable" republican votes are being split by Bush, Christie, Rubio, and Kasich. The nominee is likely to be one of those four. By dragging the process out, you give similar voters a chance to consolidate behind a candidate and not have candidates win by just appealing to fringes that add up to some plurality.

[alfred russel]

I can see the benefits of staggering vote, but it has to be done in a far less ad hoc way.  It can't be Iowa and New Hampshire every single time.  Maybe have five super Tuesdays, the order of which is staggered by random draw.  If nothing else, we would at least not be forced to put ethanol in our cars with that primary system.

Cruz was against ethanol.

[Valmy]

But a major problem is that we wouldn't have a way to winnow down the candidates. To take the GOP race for instance, Trump is a very heavy underdog in the betting markets, and Cruz is also an underdog. However, if you look at national polling, Trump is #1 and I think Cruz #2 (not sure on that). The reason is that the "reasonable" republican votes are being split by Bush, Christie, Rubio, and Kasich. The nominee is likely to be one of those four. By dragging the process out, you give similar voters a chance to consolidate behind a candidate and not have candidates win by just appealing to fringes that add up to some plurality.

The nutty vote is being split between Carson, Cruz, Trump, and Paul. I don't see how this analysis holds water.

[Valmy]

Cruz was against ethanol.

A position that appealed to many Iowa Conservatives. But ethanol is not an issue that should be used to winnow down candidates.

[alfred russel]

The nutty vote is being split between Carson, Cruz, Trump, and Paul. I don't see how this analysis holds water.

There is a diversity of nutty between those candidates: religious nutty, racist/isolationist nutty, and libertarian nutty. Yes there is crossover among the groups of nutty, but less so than among the traditional candidates.

[Valmy]

The nutty vote is being split between Carson, Cruz, Trump, and Paul. I don't see how this analysis holds water.

There is a diversity of nutty between those candidates: religious nutty, racist/isolationist nutty, and libertarian nutty. Yes there is crossover among the groups of nutty, but less so than among the traditional candidates.

Again I disagree. We have the tea-party traditional guy in Rubio. The rough Northeasterner in Christie. The polished old money in Bush, who also has kind of a southern thing going for him. And the pragmatic midwesterner in Kasich. All have very different strengths and weaknesses.

[Iormlund]

I don't think this applies in the internet age. Every candidate has almost unlimited opportunity to reach every single community in the country for virtually no cost. Subjecting the candidates to the brutal never-ending slog of on the ground campaigning across Iowa and New Hampshire along with all these debates for months on end seems like a poor way to select a President to me. We are trying to find an excellent administrator and leader with goals we support. But what kind of ace administrator is going to want to do all that shit? There should be a three month window for campaigning and the vote should be nationwide. That way everybody just puts there shit out there and anybody who cares can read it and make a choice, and they easily can do that. National issues will then decide a national election rather than somebody's opinion on Iowa Corn Subsidies, and other local concerns that should be state and local issues anyway, being a big factor.

I suspect you would be very surprised how many people are either not on the internet or only minimally on it.

But a major problem is that we wouldn't have a way to winnow down the candidates. To take the GOP race for instance, Trump is a very heavy underdog in the betting markets, and Cruz is also an underdog. However, if you look at national polling, Trump is #1 and I think Cruz #2 (not sure on that). The reason is that the "reasonable" republican votes are being split by Bush, Christie, Rubio, and Kasich. The nominee is likely to be one of those four. By dragging the process out, you give similar voters a chance to consolidate behind a candidate and not have candidates win by just appealing to fringes that add up to some plurality.

You can do that with preferential voting as well. There's no need to make a few states shape elections.

[Admiral Yi]

Is there any kind of pressure to reform the US primary system? A bunch of candidates are going to drop off after today, and that's just after what? Two states that account for roughly 1.5% of the electorate?

There has been pressure for as long as I can remember, particularly from people who think Iowa and New Hampshire are too white.

However you're wrong when you say that just two tiny states are forcing a bunch of candidates to quit; virtually non-stop nationwide polls are part of the decision too.

[Valmy]

Is there any kind of pressure to reform the US primary system? A bunch of candidates are going to drop off after today, and that's just after what? Two states that account for roughly 1.5% of the electorate?

There has been pressure for as long as I can remember, particularly from people who think Iowa and New Hampshire are too white.

However you're wrong when you say that just two tiny states are forcing a bunch of candidates to quit; virtually non-stop nationwide polls are part of the decision too.

Well the deal is unless you are on the governing board of the Republican or Democratic party you have no say in the matter and there is no real pressure anybody can bring to bear on those that are. So it doesn't matter.

I think both the way the primaries are run and the polls are artifacts of ancient technology and ancient thinking and have no place in the modern world. Therefore, this being American politics, they will be around forever

[Martinus]

I don't think this applies in the internet age. Every candidate has almost unlimited opportunity to reach every single community in the country for virtually no cost. Subjecting the candidates to the brutal never-ending slog of on the ground campaigning across Iowa and New Hampshire along with all these debates for months on end seems like a poor way to select a President to me. We are trying to find an excellent administrator and leader with goals we support. But what kind of ace administrator is going to want to do all that shit? There should be a three month window for campaigning and the vote should be nationwide. That way everybody just puts there shit out there and anybody who cares can read it and make a choice, and they easily can do that. National issues will then decide a national election rather than somebody's opinion on Iowa Corn Subsidies, and other local concerns that should be state and local issues anyway, being a big factor.

I suspect you would be very surprised how many people are either not on the internet or only minimally on it.

But a major problem is that we wouldn't have a way to winnow down the candidates. To take the GOP race for instance, Trump is a very heavy underdog in the betting markets, and Cruz is also an underdog. However, if you look at national polling, Trump is #1 and I think Cruz #2 (not sure on that). The reason is that the "reasonable" republican votes are being split by Bush, Christie, Rubio, and Kasich. The nominee is likely to be one of those four. By dragging the process out, you give similar voters a chance to consolidate behind a candidate and not have candidates win by just appealing to fringes that add up to some plurality.

Yeah, or as Bill Maher put it, Americans are stupid, so they need a lot of time to black ball the nutty candidates.