States Consider abolishing their Presidential Primaries in 2012

N

newsjunky

Driving Instructor
This is something I did not think they would ever consider. Massachusetts is apparently one of those states. Why am I not surprised?
Don't they have a failing Health Care Program?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Not_enough_money_for_a_2012_primary.html
 
I'm not sure how I feel about that. My fear is that they will be replaced by something worse.
 
Ask me why I won't back Mitt Romney for President. He helped craft that health care bill that is bankrupting the state. I think you are right they could come up with something worse.
 
Think about this for a second; if you eliminate the primaries and go to state party caucuses or conventions, then only party members would be voting within their party to select the party candidate and the delegates to go to the national convention. It would keep Dems from crossing over for the purpose of voting for the weakest candidate.
 
Foxmeister said:
Think about this for a second; if you eliminate the primaries and go to state party caucuses or conventions, then only party members would be voting within their party to select the party candidate and the delegates to go to the national convention. It would keep Dems from crossing over for the purpose of voting for the weakest candidate.
Click to expand...
If they chose that method I would see no problem with it. Think those folks are fair enough to do that? That is a very liberal state.
 
newsjunky said:
Foxmeister said:
Think about this for a second; if you eliminate the primaries and go to state party caucuses or conventions, then only party members would be voting within their party to select the party candidate and the delegates to go to the national convention. It would keep Dems from crossing over for the purpose of voting for the weakest candidate.
Click to expand...
If they chose that method I would see no problem with it. Think those folks are fair enough to do that? That is a very liberal state.
Click to expand...
If they're going to eliminate the primary and go to party caucuses, the parties would have to be in charge of how their caucuses are conducted as the parties then would be paying for them, not the state. The state would not be able to interfere.
 
Foxmeister said:
newsjunky said:
Foxmeister said:
Think about this for a second; if you eliminate the primaries and go to state party caucuses or conventions, then only party members would be voting within their party to select the party candidate and the delegates to go to the national convention. It would keep Dems from crossing over for the purpose of voting for the weakest candidate.
Click to expand...
If they chose that method I would see no problem with it. Think those folks are fair enough to do that? That is a very liberal state.
Click to expand...
If they're going to eliminate the primary and go to party caucuses, the parties would have to be in charge of how their caucuses are conducted as the parties then would be paying for them, not the state. The state would not be able to interfere.
Click to expand...

I've never really kept up with that, but I do like the idea. Interesting
 
Iowa holds a caucus and not a primary. Each party has a county convention to select the delegates to go to the caucus.
 
If memory serves, there was a time when the president was not elected by the general public. This may be interesting as it plays out.
 
Jack Reacher said:
If memory serves, there was a time when the president was not elected by the general public. This may be interesting as it plays out.
Click to expand...

Back in the olden times...

This was how the electoral college was started. Each state was granted electors amounting to the number of senators (always two) and the number of representatives it had in Congress. The Electors of met in their perspective states to cast their votes. In order to prevent Electors from voting for a state's "favorite son" they each had to cast two votes; one vote had to be for someone out of their state. Ballots were sealed and sent to the president of the Senate and they were open and counted in the presence of both houses of Congress. Whoever received 50% plus one votes was the president. The candidate with the second highest vote count was VP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top