Talk:United States presidential primary

I think this article needs to be marked as biased. The primary system is not without controversies, and the comments about Iowa and New Hampshire seems to support the status quo. Comments about how Iowa and NH's early causes and primaries allegedly helps dark horse candidates or give campaigning a more person sense should be reserved for a "Controversies" section. There is a debate about the current system. For example, New Hampshire voters having disproportionally large influence is not universally viewed as a positive attribute. SiriusAlphaCMa 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing this article lacks is an explanation of how it came to pass that in each state the Republicans and Democrats have their primaries at the same time. Such a high degree of co-ordination and co-operation by two rival political parties would probably be criticized as collusion in most countrhiInsert non-formatted text hereies. While it may seem natural to many Americans, I can't be the only non-American who finds this puzzling. Also, although this article might not be the best place for it, there seems to be no article that explains how third-party candidates get on the presidential ballot.--Indefatigable 18:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Though I have read throughtly yet, I agree that the article lacks explantions for non-American readers. For example, I was looking for the difference between Primary and caucus but it doesn't say anything. Oh, although it is probably obviously for almost everyone that the US is two party system, the article should mention that. To my knowldge, I think theoretically possible to run for the president if you are not a member of political parties. In short, my impression is that the article is written by Americans for Americans. Any input from non-American should be helpful. -- Taku 20:42, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Questions from a European.

Are primaries for members or for everyone? How does one get the right to vote in a primary for a certain party? Do all parties have primaries, or only the major parties? Is it required by law, or just common practice? Is the infrastructure for the voting party or government infrastructure, e.g. who counts the votes after a primary? Does voting in a primary have any consequences, or is it secret? How many people vote in primaries? Are they targeted via mainstream media or is it a small and dedicated, high-educated group that is targeted using special channelS? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good questions! The rules vary by state. In some states you have to be previously registered as a Democrat/Republican to vote in that primary. In New Hampshire, all registered Republicans and registered Independents can vote in the Republican primary, and all registered Democrats and registered Independents can vote in the Democratic primary. Entry into the primaries are controlled by the parties EXCEPT that voting ion election day is supervised by local government, which counts the votes. Voting is secret in all primaries but OPEN in the Iowa Caucus and other caucuses. The primaries are very well covered by the media if there is a contest. The minor parties choose to not have primaries. Turnout varies but in a contested race expect 35-50% turnout of those eligible. Rjensen 19:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Rjensen says is basically right, but I'd point out a couple of things. First, sometimes minor parties do participate. No party is actually required to pay any attention to the results of the primary (at least, not for president; the situation for state office is less clear). Parties make their own nominating rules and can pretty much do what they want; if they want to pick their presidential nominee in the classic "smoke-filled room" then as far as I know there's no law against it, and any such law would probably be unconstitutional. Presumably the parties resist the temptation to do that for fear that the public reaction to it would cost them votes. --Trovatore 19:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too am a European, impressed by the American democratic system. I have some questions on the relationship between the national parties and the 50 states: What would happen if a state defied the parties' rules on primaries, and (say) held its primary at the wrong time? California is in the process of passing a law which advances the date of its primary. Does this mean it will be punished by having its delegates' votes discounted at the party conferences? Why did the parties acquiesce in the changes made by those southern states which established Super Tuesday? Isn't Super Tuesday just bullying? Who pays for primaries and caucuses, and counting the votes - is it the states, or the parties? Why do the states have the power to determine franchise in the primaries, when the primaries are held for the benefit of the parties? Benedict Rodgers 14:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The state committees cannot push the boundaries too far, or they would risk being decertified by the national party under the party rules. But on top of the rules, a great deal of media and campaign infrastructure is in place in Iowa and New Hampshire and there is little incentive for a candidate to spend a lot of time in Alaska or Hawaii, which regularly hold GOP caucuses before Iowa, because they count for even less in the press than at convention. And there is the example of 1996; the Louisiana Republican Party moved their caucus up trying to upstage Iowa, and Phil Gramm's campaign wanted to use it to gain early momentum. Instead, he was humiliated by Pat Buchanan and quit the race after coming in fifth in Iowa. Other than the Iowa and New Hampshire-first rule, I don't think the national parties have strict rules on scheduling, so organizing something like Super Tuesday is a matter of coordination by state legislatures and parties and not any sort of mass civil disobedience. The costs of primaries are covered by the states with public funds, and different states fund their election commissions by different means. The government's power to regulate the primaries derives from a 1941 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Classic, which states that even though a party is a private organization, because the state allows the parties to select candidates to hold elective office, a party primary is a state action. Also see Smith v. Allwright. -choster 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe South Carolina does not fund its primary with public dollars. Parties pay for the election process. See: Chris Cillizza, Chris. Fundraiser to Help Underwrite S.C. Primary Washington Post,Friday, February 23, 2007; Page A08. Yellowdesk 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note- Several states HAVE gotten their votes stripped or halved for moving up this year, such as Florida and Michigan for the Democrats. Also, Super (Duper?) Tuesday is neither disobedience nor coordination; February Fifth is merely the earliest date allowed without permission by both parties. See http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html for more info. :-) --Cheeesemonger (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I started out expanding the history section and ended up rewriting the entire article, partly to Indefatigable and Gerrit's concerns and to incorporate Rjensen's improvements. There's probably more to say in the criticisms and propsoed reforms sections, but I didn't have time to research them. Fire away. - choster 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I rephrased it slightly. Rjensen 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire & Iowa

The history section looks good, but I think it would be helpful if someone could clarify how these two states got to hold their primaries first in the first place. Why were they singled out for this huge advantage? Sylvain1972 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The history for New Hampshire is that thrifty yankees held their primary the same day they had their annual town meetings to establish their town budgets and taxes, in late winter/early spring, starting in 1916. The towns only need to heat the town hall one day, and everyone was already in the room. Years later the primary became more and more significant, and party-boss influence diminished. New Hampshire became a method for individuals to upset the dominant trends and thinking, and demonstrate electability. In 1952 Eisenhower demonstrated this by defeating Taft in the Republican primary. From the 1970s the primary became earlier and earlier, as the state legislature attempted to keep New Hampshire in the public eye, and not incidentally, have the benefit of national expenditures in an economically challenged state. See New_Hampshire_primary, which needs expansion. -- Yellowdesk 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic" primary states

I was wondering what the states were that held primaries between 1932 and 1968. The current article says 13 or 14, but it would be useful, I think, to list them all (and even to have articles about each one and their history). I can glean from various wikipedia articles on presidential elections in this period that there were, in one election or another, primaries in the following states:

California
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
West Virginia
Wisconsin

This, unfortunately, appears to be 15 states. I will note, though, that I'd never heard of a Texas primary other than in the wikipedia article on the 1964 election. The rest of them are more or less familiar to me. Are any of these wrong? Are there any others? What states had primaries in 1920, but got rid of them by 1932? Are there any good online sources on this stuff? john k 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A visit to a college library and researching the political science and American political history journals is your best bet. It's a hot topic. It would be fabulous to have a good article on the changing influence of primaries, the downfall of party-boss-centered selection of candidates during the 20th century. Even the last 25 years has a big story. With all of the big states moving their dates, the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire is effectively over, since the candidates need to have huge fundraising enterprises, and a national campaign already in place, more than six months ahead of the events in 15 big states for subsequent post-Iowa and post-New Hampshire primaries. The days of someone like Jimmy Carter organizing a silently successful initial primary / caucus are over. -- Yellowdesk 14:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone been able to find a list of delegates assigned to each state? I've been looking online to no avail. I downloaded the PDF file of Democratic Party Selection Rules and even that had nothing about the exact delegate counts. Anyone else have a better idea of where to look? Standard101 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hard to understand

this article is hard for non americans to understand. i suggest that it should be simplified for the benifit of the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.236.16 (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. what about a full list of primary dates, or at least a link to the full list where this article mentions key dates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.1.192 (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as a Canadian I find this article quite incomplete and jumpy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.184.193.28 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of dates at http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html if anyone still wants it. --Cheeesemonger (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information: Why Primaries/Caucuses

This article needs to explain why some states only hold cacuses (which seems to be of lesser value) and others hold primaries - especially since some articles (in 2008) suggested that basically anybody could join an Iowa cacus by pretending to live there and vote for of a candidate - ie, not a very serious voting system. --IceHunter (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused about the state legislatures' roles in setting primary dates. What is the legal basis for state governments involving themselves with the internal workings of the 2 parties? Is this a role the parties cede to the legislature? Bills relating to party workings are effectively party work, not government work. Is this recognised as a state subsidy to the parties? 209.87.224.87 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Primary

I just noticed that the piped link for Michigan Primary in the article directs to Michigan Democratic primary, 2008, thus ignoring the Republican primary. I added a see-also section to the Democratic page, and also created a disambiguation page Michigan Presidential Primary, 2008 (disambiguation) to sort out the difficulties. This article's link now goes to the disambig page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewLiberal (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring?

Dumb question from someone unfamiliar with the US election process.

Is there some type of point scoring... I see news about this and that candidate "winning" a state. Do they get 1 point per state, or how does it work? Is there a tally of points won?

I read somewhere that the california vote "doesn't matter"... why is that?

Thanks for any clarification.

--Popoi (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly "points" -- they get delegates pledged to vote for them that go to the party's national convention. How many delegates from each state is completely up to the party. The parties are free to completely ignore the primaries if they want. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]