Can someone help a n00b out? Why do we do primaries as we do?

[Inchworm]

I'm pretty sure I understand most of the way we do it, but why?

Is there some logic to not doing it all at once?

I get mad when I'm living in NC. It seems like the people of the late states usually get screwed out of the process. I don't know if it is just a bias in my memory, but usually by the time we get to vote in late states many candidats have already dropped out.

If you can explain why please do. I'll even goto links if you know a site that explains why.

:shrug:

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. It's easier to campaign in a few states at a time, than in the whole country at once

That's the main reason. I really wish they would rotate the states, though.

[Inchworm]

3. ok- that makes sense

I didnt think of that.

I am learning this is all administered by each party. They make the rules I mean.

That in itself makes me worry about MI and .. the other state who moved their date against the parties wishes. So all those voters in the states that didnt count got screwed. Who dropped the ball on that?

:hi:

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

9. The state party leaders went against DNC on that one.

Basically, they played chicken and lost. The DNC has the first few primaries set up to provide some sort of a balanced cross-section of the country, and having the MI and FL primaries earlier would throw that off. The rules were established well in advance, and agreed to by all parties, but the MI and FL party leaders decided to go against them.

[TexasObserver]

2. The Democratic National Committee exerts some controls on the date of the event.

States can choose to have primary elections, caucuses, or hybrids.

Many have one or the other. A number of states have the hybrid.

That's why counting delegates as we go is very difficult.

[Inchworm]

4. So thats what happened in MI?

DNC said here is your primary date, choose caucuss, primary, or hybrid. Then the state said and we'll also up our date, in turn, pissing off the DNC?

[TexasObserver]

6. That's exactly what happened. They defied the DNC and set their primaries too early.

The rationale is that the race should start with four specific states in order, and then go from there. That's why they have Iowa and New Hampshire first.

I don't necessarily agree with the approach, as I think Iowa and New Hampshire should not have a lock on the first two events. I'd like to see something like 2-3 states per week, every week, for 3-4 months.

[Inchworm]

7. does each party communicate

DNC and RNC to set dates to save state's money?

I have 100s of qquestions hehe. You dont have to keep answering. :P

:thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

8. The states are free to set their primaries whenever they want, except as limited in time

States usually pick the time that they want, or is traditional, for their state. They choose the time for their own purposes.

The rub this year came when Florida and Michigan thumbed their noses at the time limitations set by the DNC, and in doing so, broke the rules for the timing of their events. If they had waited a couple of weeks to have theirs, both states delegates would be counted.

Here's what is going to have to happen: both states will have to have late events that are caucuses, and they will get delegates from that process. Or, they'll be assigned on some negotiated basis. They will not be based upon the beauty contest voting that all candidates were suppose to eschew. Hillary broke the rules in both states, and that's why her numbers were best.

[Inchworm]

10. Thanks for the thourough answers

It makes better sense now. I've always just followed the candidates and voted in whatever state I was in. The MI/FL thing made me wonder about the process though.

I've lived in both states since voting age and would have been very pissed if I had no way to participate properly.

So it is all really just tradition? (not any part of the constitution or laws)

hehe.. let me know when you're tired of answering :)

:yourock:

[CK_John]

5. It is a state issue. n/t

[Whisp]

11. good thread. thanks for asking. I have a ? too..

cnn just now projected delegates
Obama 1170
Clinton 1168

these numbers don't seem to be moving for Obama as much as he has been sweeping.
I don't understand.

now I don't know if the above includes VA only, and still have to add the other two from tonight.
this has always been a head scratcher for me.

and it seems that up to this point, each time I see these, they are different, different on the web, different on each news show... aaaack!

[Inchworm]

12. I want to know the answer to this one too

I'm very close to understanding the "super delegates," but this slow movement of obama count has me curious.

:thumbsup:

[Inchworm]

14. drunken bump for an answer

...hic!

:+

[Egnever]

15. That total includes super delegates

hillary initially locked up a lot of super delegates when she appeared to be the sure thing. She leads obama by something around 80-90 super delegates. He has now covered that deficit with actual elected delegates. Mostly through the sweeps he has had the last few days as they were virtually tied on super tues.

[Egnever]

16. they are different because the Official aportionment of delgates

is not complete yet. A lot of the numbers you see are actualy best guesses by all the news networks after crunching the numbers they have been provided by the states from thier results. Till the results are actually ratified by the states those numbers are only estimates. Damn good ones but ....

[TheDonkey]

13. NC should have just cheated and moved to the front of the line... Hillary would demand you got seats

that way