Comments on: Many Primary Ideas http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/many-primary-ideas/ Recording Bits and Pieces of Heaven in Theory and Practice Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:18:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/many-primary-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-5406 David Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:26:02 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/many-primary-ideas/#comment-5406 Wow, with so little time to prepare, is it better to work toward a solution that already has high-profile backers (like rotating regionals) or try to keep the discussion open for other proposals to be considered more completely? Wow, with so little time to prepare, is it better to work toward a solution that already has high-profile backers (like rotating regionals) or try to keep the discussion open for other proposals to be considered more completely?

]]> By: Bradley Ross http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/many-primary-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-5403 Bradley Ross Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:49:54 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/many-primary-ideas/#comment-5403 Yes, that makes your idea a lot more clear to me. Thanks for that clarification. I was thinking they could choose any time window and get a corresponding weight value, with early states always getting a lower weighting. I see now you're talking about rotating assignments. In any event, I totally agree the system needs reform. One interesting thing I learned from an article you linked was that the GOP will only change their rules during the national convention, so the time for enacting any change is very narrow and relatively soon! Yes, that makes your idea a lot more clear to me. Thanks for that clarification. I was thinking they could choose any time window and get a corresponding weight value, with early states always getting a lower weighting. I see now you’re talking about rotating assignments.

In any event, I totally agree the system needs reform. One interesting thing I learned from an article you linked was that the GOP will only change their rules during the national convention, so the time for enacting any change is very narrow and relatively soon!

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/many-primary-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-5368 David Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:19:38 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/many-primary-ideas/#comment-5368 I had not considered the possibility with the weighted delegates that any state would choose to hold their primaries later than the window to which they were assigned for that cycle. I think we do have to account for that, but I think I would give full votes to every state that voted in their assigned window, and dock .25 per window from the weight of each state who voted earlier than assigned. In other words, if a state was assigned the fourth window and voted in the first they would only have .25 of the share that their population would normally command of the 10% of delegates that are awarded for that window. On the other hand, a state that was assigned to the first window would receive full weight for their population in assigning their portion of the 10% of delegates. (Did that make anything about my idea more clear?) The security of Iowa and New Hampshire is one of the drawbacks I see in the Regional Primaries idea as well. I'm not sure that your assessment of the national primary is completely accurate. I imagine that a candidate could build support in a specific region enough to garner early votes there and use that to raise their national profile. The key is not to get support everywhere, but to get committed supporters early. I had not considered the possibility with the weighted delegates that any state would choose to hold their primaries later than the window to which they were assigned for that cycle. I think we do have to account for that, but I think I would give full votes to every state that voted in their assigned window, and dock .25 per window from the weight of each state who voted earlier than assigned. In other words, if a state was assigned the fourth window and voted in the first they would only have .25 of the share that their population would normally command of the 10% of delegates that are awarded for that window. On the other hand, a state that was assigned to the first window would receive full weight for their population in assigning their portion of the 10% of delegates. (Did that make anything about my idea more clear?)

The security of Iowa and New Hampshire is one of the drawbacks I see in the Regional Primaries idea as well.

I’m not sure that your assessment of the national primary is completely accurate. I imagine that a candidate could build support in a specific region enough to garner early votes there and use that to raise their national profile. The key is not to get support everywhere, but to get committed supporters early.

]]> By: Bradley Ross http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/many-primary-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-5362 Bradley Ross Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:38:37 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/many-primary-ideas/#comment-5362 So we've go a few ideas on the table. Lottery: I like this one. :) Weighted delegate assignment: Very interesting proposal that lets individual states select the way they want to be influential. The formula needs to be a bit more complex than you've proposed, however. What if more than 40% of states choose to put their primary in the fourth segment of voting? Then they are actually getting LESS real representation than they used to, while giving up early voting clout. Still, the seed of this idea is very interesting to me. Perhaps a workable variation would be to weight the vote of each delegate based on primary voting date. Each delegate from a state in the first window of voting would have 0.5 votes to cast. (In other words, they only get half a vote to cast in exchange for getting an early and influential say in a candidates momentum.) The second window gets 0.7, the third 0.9, and the fourth window's delegates get a full vote. Regional Primaries: The idea has merit, but it still leaves Iowa and New Hampshire in the coveted spot permanently. The four regions would also be too large for a candidate without a lot of money to effectively get the word out. I'd reject it totally, but I really like the idea of a whole region being considered together since they may share important issues in common. National Primary: Terrible idea. For a candidate to be viable, they still have to have a national presence to get the smattering of early voters from across the country. This would be worse than the current scenario. So we’ve go a few ideas on the table.

Lottery: I like this one. :)

Weighted delegate assignment: Very interesting proposal that lets individual states select the way they want to be influential. The formula needs to be a bit more complex than you’ve proposed, however. What if more than 40% of states choose to put their primary in the fourth segment of voting? Then they are actually getting LESS real representation than they used to, while giving up early voting clout. Still, the seed of this idea is very interesting to me. Perhaps a workable variation would be to weight the vote of each delegate based on primary voting date. Each delegate from a state in the first window of voting would have 0.5 votes to cast. (In other words, they only get half a vote to cast in exchange for getting an early and influential say in a candidates momentum.) The second window gets 0.7, the third 0.9, and the fourth window’s delegates get a full vote.

Regional Primaries: The idea has merit, but it still leaves Iowa and New Hampshire in the coveted spot permanently. The four regions would also be too large for a candidate without a lot of money to effectively get the word out. I’d reject it totally, but I really like the idea of a whole region being considered together since they may share important issues in common.

National Primary: Terrible idea. For a candidate to be viable, they still have to have a national presence to get the smattering of early voters from across the country. This would be worse than the current scenario.

]]>