A release from the Secretary of the State’s office today said that SOTS Susan Bysiewicz has been appointed to the National Association of Secretaries of the State (NASS) subcommittee on presidential primaries. The group will meet in Washington next month to work on establishing a bipartisan solution to the current broken system of primaries.
�If the current free-for-all system continues, we could potentially see primary voters doing their holiday season shopping and going to the polls on the same day,� said Bysiewicz, �The 2008 presidential primary calendar does not serve the best interest of the voters. We see more and more states trying to leapfrog one another in the race to cast the first ballot. We need a solution that is fair to the voters, fair to the candidates, and allows for a thorough vetting process.�
A plan for rotating regional primaries has already been suggested by NASS–the only problem I have with it is that it leaves Iowa and New Hampshire in their current prominent positions ahead of the other primaries.
23 responses so far ↓
“We see more and more states trying to leapfrog one another in the race to cast the first ballot. ”
This woman’s hypocrisy knows no limits! How many press releases did she have supporting Connecticut’s decision to move earlier its primary? She’s one of the leapfoggers! Worse, if I recall, her rhetoric included use of the word “disenfranchised.”
Now suddenly she pulls a Claude Raines on the problems incurred from moving up primaries?
Connecticut should supplant New Hampshire as home to the Northeast primary.
We are more diverse. Travel is much easier, and we have a better airport, not to mention you can take a train up from NYC.
It’s not so friggin’ cold, we have our own media markets, more hotels and better restaurants…
Plus it’s our turn!
The fact that we moved our primary up was a symptom of the larger problems inherent in the primary process–and she was right, if we had cast our ballots later during this of all years, CT’s votes would have been meaningless.
I’m glad she’ll be working on a solution–and I hope that we do, in fact, end up with rotating regional primaries.
[quote post="1042"]The fact that we moved our primary up was a symptom of the larger problems inherent in the primary process[/quote]
And that was made explicit in her press releases, so I’m not sure what there is to complain about.
So, let me get this straight: (1) states moving up their primary is a problem and (2) Connecticut was right to move up its primary? Huh? (Gabe: the entire press release was not linked which is why I did not see the section you refer.)
Conncon, I believe Gabe was referring to previous press releases. But here’s the entire press release from today:
I was was referring to when we moved our primary to February 5th – about 10 months ago.
The argument goes like this:
The system is broken.
An interest is created for states to move up their primary.
Connecticut has to move up their primary in order to be relevant.
Let’s fix the system going forward, but, living in reality, also act so that our state is not irrelevant right now.
I think the national parties ought to even more heavily weigh later primaries. If you got double delegates in March and double again in May if that’s when you held your primary, then some states might be inclined to move back their primaries. I don’t know where the actual figures lie, but they have to lie somewhere. At some delegate ratio, states would no longer try to leapfrog each other.
Look, the primaries were moved up in order to benefit the Clintons. Period. They are gaming the process in the hope of winning with less than 50% support among Democrats.
Moving the big primaries forward from March to early February was done simply to ensure that there won’t be sufficient time for the contest to boil down to Clinton vs. one anti-Clinton. Also, enough delegates will be committed on Feb. 5th that a brokered convention could easily ensue. (delegates are only bound on the first vote, after that they can do what they want.)
Definitely the process sucks. With Iowa and NH you’ve got some fairly un-representative states coming close to making the entire choice for the rest of Democrats. (and geographically, Iowa is absurd.)
But please, let’s don’t view Connecticut’s change to Feb. 5th as being a reform effort. It’s anything but, unless you believe the Clinton gang is really an agent of change.
I think that delegates are bound for at least two votes, not just one.
gmr – most states have a negligible amount of delegates (due to super delegates. For example, doubling (or even tripling) CT’s 62 out of 4,341 2004 convention delegates wouldn’t make a difference in any but the closest race. The only way the majority of states can be relevant is to have a primary that the national press deems relevant – i.e. have a momentum building early primary.
Personally, I think the press should get a lot of the blame here – the early primaries only take on the aura of importance that they do because the press beats that into our heads over and over and over…
TB – The way I view CT’s move to February 5 as a reform effort is in its utility in breaking the system – which is why I advocated (and still do) a move out in front of everybody – we aren’t going to change this thing unless everyone acknowledges that it is broken beyond repair.
Gabe: Whatever happened to taking a principled stand??? TrueBlue CT has it nailed! Is there any question that 100% of what Susan Bysiewicz does is for her party? (I don’t mind that, per se, I just hate her trying to pretend otherwise!)
I don’t see how this is party driven, since both primaries are changing. How does moving the primary up help the Democrats?
[quote post="1042"]How does moving the primary up help the Democrats? [/quote]
It helps Hillary this election season and Hillary just happens to be a Democrat. The notion that people who vote in a state primary cast their vote based on how a candidate is doing in succeeding primaries in other states is pretty demeaning of the voters. And, of course, a lot of people seem to forget that it in our Republic, it is the states that elect the Prez not the general electorate at large.
Conncon,
If TrueBlue was on the mark about this (I disagree, by the way), then moving up primaries helps Rudy as much as it helps Hillary. I’m not sure Democrats want Giuliani winning the Republican nomination nearly as much as the Republicans want Hillary. If our primary was changed for partisan reasons, then we should do whatever helps a joke of a candidate like Fred Thompson.
[quote post="1042"]If TrueBlue was on the mark about this (I disagree, by the way), then moving up primaries helps Rudy as much as it helps Hillary[/quote]
All you have to do is look at who in the GA drove the change to see it was done for Monica lewinsky’s lover’s wife to get elected. pass the cigars!
Toucan –
[quote post="1042"]It helps Hillary this election season and Hillary just happens to be a Democrat.[/quote]
It may help her (but that is debatable – it may create a brokered convention in which all bets are off – and I don’t think that would help her), but if it did it would help her in the primary. Believe it or not, there will be a Democrat emerging from the primary no matter what the date is.
Also, there is something logically missing from this argument – any evidence that SB wants to help Clinton – I looked, and I couldn’t find it.
[quote post="1042"]The notion that people who vote in a state primary cast their vote based on how a candidate is doing in succeeding primaries in other states is pretty demeaning of the voters.[/quote]
You’re right, it is. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it any less true. Are you arguing that the results of previous primaries don’t affect subsequent ones? Because I would love to see something to back that up.
[quote post="1042"]And, of course, a lot of people seem to forget that it in our Republic, it is the states that elect the Prez not the general electorate at large.[/quote]
Thanks, but where did anyone forget that? How is it relevant to a discussion about primary dates?
Also, Jim’s point above is extremely good – if moving up helps the frontrunner, why would the Dems, much less the Dems in CT where Giuliani might actually have an impact on “what usually happens,” want to do that?
And how can we adjust the primaries to make Fred “Who is Terry Schiavo” Thompson the Republican nominee?
Gabe–
In 2004 people complained about the “front-loading” of the Dem primaries, which was supported with the reasoning that it gave our nominee more time to raise money, and garner full support within the Party.
Now we have taken 2004, and despite the inclucion of Nevada and South Carolina, we have gone even further to make it even more likely that our nominee is decided not in March, but early February! And this is progress?
Plus you claim that the Clintons aren’t necessarily advantaged in a brokered convention? We both know you’re no fool, and I’d presume you’ve taken a look at Dem delegates past and present. It’s a who’s who of cronycrat insiders, and for you to suggest this sample might break for any one other than the last power structure is incredible. It’s not about change, it’s all about re-establishing the old relationships.
I doubt history will look back on Feb 2008’s Super Tuesday with anything but disdain. Again, it’s all about making sure a single anti-Clinton emerges. How much better our Party would be off if we didn’t arrive at our candidate until summer time.
[quote post="1042"]I doubt history will look back on Feb 2008’s Super Tuesday with anything but disdain. [/quote]
First of all, as I said above, thats why I think its a good idea. I’m for whatever breaks the primary system this year, so we can set up something sane.
Clinton isn’t advantaged in a brokered convention because she is running a campaign based on her inevitability. If she doesn’t have the votes on February 6th, we will spend the next few months hearing about how she couldn’t get it done – she will arrive in Denver a loser.
Question: are primaries winner take all like the general election?
[quote comment="20414"]Question: are primaries winner take all like the general election?[/quote]
No. Delegate selection is an incredibly complex process which varies by state, and in CT includes post-primary caucuses for candidates reaching 15% of the vote in each Congressional district.
[quote post="1042"]The notion that people who vote in a state primary cast their vote based on how a candidate is doing in succeeding primaries in other states is pretty demeaning of the voters.
You’re right, it is. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it any less true. Are you arguing that the results of previous primaries don’t affect subsequent ones? Because I would love to see something to back that up.[/quote]
No, to your question unless you consider the fact that some folks drop out if they don’t do well in early primaries. That said,I’d like to see you prove that people vote based on the outcome of previous primaries rather than a thought process of some sort to pick the best candidate.
As for the reminder that the states elect the Prez, that was because several commenters would seem to suggest otherwaise, that’s all.
And on Susan B, she’s a hack and she does what she’s told.
Oh screw the primaries already – let’s just have the 2008 vote next month and get it all over with. It would save us all a lot of money and heart ache.
They got the freaking Clinton Obama signs and paraphernalia already printed and so does the Rudy camp.
Let’s stop pretending the will of the people actually matters anymore.
As for Susy B. she’s a party hack who has done everything she could to mess up the way we now vote in CT, with those lousy scanners, and has wasted some serious money in the process. She has not made any serious effort to make sure we don’t have voter fraud going on with regard to illegals and I am totally disgusted with her office’s handling of improper candidate filings as well as the voter fraud going on in facilities like nursing homes. She may be a nice person, but she is a horrible SOS and their website stinks to boot.
You must log in to post a comment.