Comments on: Power Struggle http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/ 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 Miller » Blog Archive » No Good Delegate Answer for DNC http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-7551 David Miller » Blog Archive » No Good Delegate Answer for DNC Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:39:25 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-7551 [...] First - any delegate seating will undermine the authority of the party to affect the primary schedule (that power struggle is what started this whole mess). [...] [...] First – any delegate seating will undermine the authority of the party to affect the primary schedule (that power struggle is what started this whole mess). [...]

]]> By: David Miller » Blog Archive » Many Primary Ideas http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-5229 David Miller » Blog Archive » Many Primary Ideas Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:37:59 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-5229 [...] ideas for how we can fix our primary election process. They range from a lottery system proposed in comments and a post earlier on my site to more authoritative proposals such as rotating regional primaries [...] [...] ideas for how we can fix our primary election process. They range from a lottery system proposed in comments and a post earlier on my site to more authoritative proposals such as rotating regional primaries [...]

]]> By: David Miller » Blog Archive » Bowling for Primaries http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-2131 David Miller » Blog Archive » Bowling for Primaries Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:12:14 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-2131 [...] have been thinking about the comments by Bradley when I wrote about the primary election power struggle between the states and the parties. Last [...] [...] have been thinking about the comments by Bradley when I wrote about the primary election power struggle between the states and the parties. Last [...]

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-1887 David Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:04:36 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-1887 I am interested to see the outcome there as well. If Florida wins the showdown it might change the environment so that places like New Hampshire and Iowa are willing to accept a new system, especially considering that the chances are pretty good that they would be among the states with the highest participation among their residents and thus they would be likely to remain near the front of the nominating calendar under such a lottery system. I am interested to see the outcome there as well. If Florida wins the showdown it might change the environment so that places like New Hampshire and Iowa are willing to accept a new system, especially considering that the chances are pretty good that they would be among the states with the highest participation among their residents and thus they would be likely to remain near the front of the nominating calendar under such a lottery system.

]]> By: Bradley Ross http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-1885 Bradley Ross Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:23:36 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-1885 Enforcing the schedule will only work if the major parties really buy into it. For it to work, it would require some states, like New Hampshire, to change their laws that specify their order in the primary calendar. I'll be curious to see how the showdown goes with Florida this year on this exact subject. Will Florida win, or will the DNC? Enforcing the schedule will only work if the major parties really buy into it. For it to work, it would require some states, like New Hampshire, to change their laws that specify their order in the primary calendar.

I’ll be curious to see how the showdown goes with Florida this year on this exact subject. Will Florida win, or will the DNC?

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-1875 David Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:40:40 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-1875 I think you have some good metrics there. I might add percentage of eligible voters who participated in the primary elections previously and it might even be useful to consider participation in local and state elections as part ofthe equation. I share your interest in weighting the formula to favor smaller states because I think it levels the playing field for the candidates and gives them the opportunity to meet the voters more individually rather than relying on money and advertising. I also agree that there would be opposition to that. If that were not part of the formula we might find that smaller states tend to be more participatory anyway so that there would be no need to factor that into the lottery formula. Any ideas on how to promote and enforce such a lottery if we could nail down a formula? I think you have some good metrics there. I might add percentage of eligible voters who participated in the primary elections previously and it might even be useful to consider participation in local and state elections as part ofthe equation.

I share your interest in weighting the formula to favor smaller states because I think it levels the playing field for the candidates and gives them the opportunity to meet the voters more individually rather than relying on money and advertising. I also agree that there would be opposition to that. If that were not part of the formula we might find that smaller states tend to be more participatory anyway so that there would be no need to factor that into the lottery formula.

Any ideas on how to promote and enforce such a lottery if we could nail down a formula?

]]> By: Bradley Ross http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-1874 Bradley Ross Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:42:15 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-1874 I don't have a really specific formula I'd propose. It might take into account percentage of eligible voters who voted in the last presidential election, the placement of the state primary in the last election (to give states a higher chance of moving forward if they were late in the process last time), or the size of the state (to prefer smaller states and give candidates an easier time getting the word out, though that would be a controversial metric). I don’t have a really specific formula I’d propose. It might take into account percentage of eligible voters who voted in the last presidential election, the placement of the state primary in the last election (to give states a higher chance of moving forward if they were late in the process last time), or the size of the state (to prefer smaller states and give candidates an easier time getting the word out, though that would be a controversial metric).

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-1870 David Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:35:31 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-1870 Bradley, I did not expect to get such a fair and workable proposal. You note that Iowans take their early voting responsibilities seriously - I have also heard that the people of New Hampshire do as well - perhaps that is why they were first for so long. Obviously the weighting of the lottery system would have to be defined, and we have to specify how we measure voter participation (do you have any specifics?) but I have to agree that no metric is likely to be better than voter participation for defining which states should be the first stops in the primary schedule. Bradley,

I did not expect to get such a fair and workable proposal. You note that Iowans take their early voting responsibilities seriously – I have also heard that the people of New Hampshire do as well – perhaps that is why they were first for so long.

Obviously the weighting of the lottery system would have to be defined, and we have to specify how we measure voter participation (do you have any specifics?) but I have to agree that no metric is likely to be better than voter participation for defining which states should be the first stops in the primary schedule.

]]> By: Bradley Ross http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/power-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-1869 Bradley Ross Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:45:59 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/power-struggle/#comment-1869 I advocate a weighted lottery system for the order of state primaries. States with higher voter participation are strongly favored to have an earlier primary. The order would change each four years. I don't know if there is a better metric than voter participation, but I'm trying to think of ways to favor states with voters who are really engaged in the process. The people of Iowa, for example, seem to take their early voting responsibility seriously, and I don't think we should treat that lightly. I advocate a weighted lottery system for the order of state primaries. States with higher voter participation are strongly favored to have an earlier primary. The order would change each four years. I don’t know if there is a better metric than voter participation, but I’m trying to think of ways to favor states with voters who are really engaged in the process. The people of Iowa, for example, seem to take their early voting responsibility seriously, and I don’t think we should treat that lightly.

]]>