Comments on: The “Ohio” Plan http://www.davidjmiller.org/2008/the-ohio-plan/ 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/2008/the-ohio-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-7973 David Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:42:26 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-ohio-plan/#comment-7973 Thanks for the link. I will have to look into the balanced primary system. As for how delegates are awarded - though I have not decided exactly how important that is, I believe that the National Democratic party mandates that the state Democratic parties award their delegates in a proportional fashion. Thanks for the link. I will have to look into the balanced primary system. As for how delegates are awarded – though I have not decided exactly how important that is, I believe that the National Democratic party mandates that the state Democratic parties award their delegates in a proportional fashion.

]]> By: Reach Upward http://www.davidjmiller.org/2008/the-ohio-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-7972 Reach Upward Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:41:50 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-ohio-plan/#comment-7972 Wikipedia lists a number of primary election reform proposals at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#Reform_proposals . The writer of the article clearly favors the balanced primary system, as it appears to avoid some of the known pitfalls of the other systems. The blocks of states in the Ohio plan might be too large to allow lesser known (lesser funded) candidates from having a chance at gaining traction, and would require a lot of travel in a very short period of time. I also kind of like the concept in the balanced primary system that would pair liberal and conservative states for votes on the same date. None of the plans address the issue of awarding delegates proportionately vs. winner-take-all. Different states (and different parties in the states) do it differently. The only reason the Democrats are in the situation they are in today is because most of their delegates are awarded proportionately. The only reason John McCain sewed up the GOP nomination so early was that most of its delegates are winner-take-all by state. There are pros and cons to both methods. Are we going to let state parties continue to determine how this is done, or is there going to be some kind of national consensus on it? Wikipedia lists a number of primary election reform proposals at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#Reform_proposals . The writer of the article clearly favors the balanced primary system, as it appears to avoid some of the known pitfalls of the other systems.

The blocks of states in the Ohio plan might be too large to allow lesser known (lesser funded) candidates from having a chance at gaining traction, and would require a lot of travel in a very short period of time. I also kind of like the concept in the balanced primary system that would pair liberal and conservative states for votes on the same date.

None of the plans address the issue of awarding delegates proportionately vs. winner-take-all. Different states (and different parties in the states) do it differently. The only reason the Democrats are in the situation they are in today is because most of their delegates are awarded proportionately. The only reason John McCain sewed up the GOP nomination so early was that most of its delegates are winner-take-all by state. There are pros and cons to both methods. Are we going to let state parties continue to determine how this is done, or is there going to be some kind of national consensus on it?

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2008/the-ohio-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-7966 David Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:14:44 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-ohio-plan/#comment-7966 Permanent is all about perspective. Just because we allows those four to remain at the front now does not mean that never in the future will other states rebel against that idea and succeed in leapfrogging them. One interesting thing about the power that the parties do or don't have is that the states may set the dates, but the parties assign the delegates. Both parties have set precedents now for what they will do when states step out of line. The Republican party will probably cut the delegate allotment in half for wayward states. The Democratic party will probably do nothing (unless they choose to copy the GOP) since they are now seeking the best way to seat the delegates they stripped from Florida (and presumably Michigan). You have made your uncertainty clear, Reach, but do you think the Ohio plan offers any improvements, or does it offer the same level of dysfunction as our current system? (in your opinion) Permanent is all about perspective. Just because we allows those four to remain at the front now does not mean that never in the future will other states rebel against that idea and succeed in leapfrogging them.

One interesting thing about the power that the parties do or don’t have is that the states may set the dates, but the parties assign the delegates. Both parties have set precedents now for what they will do when states step out of line. The Republican party will probably cut the delegate allotment in half for wayward states. The Democratic party will probably do nothing (unless they choose to copy the GOP) since they are now seeking the best way to seat the delegates they stripped from Florida (and presumably Michigan).

You have made your uncertainty clear, Reach, but do you think the Ohio plan offers any improvements, or does it offer the same level of dysfunction as our current system? (in your opinion)

]]> By: Reach Upward http://www.davidjmiller.org/2008/the-ohio-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-7965 Reach Upward Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:51:41 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-ohio-plan/#comment-7965 Politics is all about compromise. There will never be a perfect plan because there is no broad agreement on the definition of perfect. I hate the idea that four states get some kind of permanent pre-eminence over the rest of the states. But realities are realities. Each state would have to buy into any plan because primary dates are ultimately set by each state. The RNC and DNC found that their power to make states toe the line is limited. We need more sanity in our primary process than we have today. Will enough people think the Ohio plan achieves that goal to make it reality? I don't know the answer to that. Politics is all about compromise. There will never be a perfect plan because there is no broad agreement on the definition of perfect. I hate the idea that four states get some kind of permanent pre-eminence over the rest of the states. But realities are realities.

Each state would have to buy into any plan because primary dates are ultimately set by each state. The RNC and DNC found that their power to make states toe the line is limited. We need more sanity in our primary process than we have today. Will enough people think the Ohio plan achieves that goal to make it reality? I don’t know the answer to that.

]]>