Why do some states count more than others?

[BooScout]

What makes some states more special than others? Why do some states get to vote so early in the primary process that the way they vote most often decides who the nominee is long before many states ever get to vote? During the 2004 election and most elections I can remember before that, the Democratic nominee was usually decided long before I ever got to vote in my state primary.

And while we are discussing the subject.....why should any candidate drop out or withdraw before the entire primary process is finished? Why drop out before every voter who cares gets a chance to put their two cents in by voting?

And why do a few people on a committee get to decide when a state gets to hold it's primary? Are they anointed by god or something that they get to decide when, where and how people get to vote?

And how do people know that a candidate should drop out for the good of the party? Who decides what's good for the party and what's not good? Is there some sort of secret vote or something to decide what's best for us?

And who makes up all these rules anyway? Again, are they anointed by god that they get to make up these rules? And why do they get to make up punishments for breaking the rules? Who elected them judge and jury? Do they hold trails for the dastardly rule breakers? Or do they just make up this shit as they go along?

Inquiring minds really want to know.

[jakem]

1. do as you are told and stop asking questions.

move along, nothing to see here!

[BooScout]

4. Naaaaaah.....I'm a rebel......

And I never do as I am told. :evilgrin:

[mdmc]

2. old stupid rules that need to be changed

:shrug:

[chascarrillo]

3. If you can't win the nomination and you're $20million in the hole, dropping out is a good idea.

But that's just me.

Hear what you're saying about the primary schedule, though (though it should be pointed out that the states just now running their contests could have moved their elections up by a lot - Feb or March; that's up to the state). Makes no sense at all to me to have traditionally superfluous primaries and caucuses, leaving some states without having any say. If one good thing comes out of this year's process (besides a Democratic president, of course!), I hope it's a good, solid fix to this long-standing problem.

[dbmk]

5. By waiting they gain delegates

Guam has 3 originally fx. Because they held their "primacaucus" late in the period, they got one more.
NC got 18 extra district delegates and 6 At-larges.

http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/20070607_DistrictAllocationChart.pdf

Whether it makes up for waiting.. Most probably don't think so.

But the opposite solution is all in the same day. And that doesn't work either.
The current system gives the candidates with less name recognition a chance to present themselves.

[Tyler Durden]

7. Nice post. Lousy, provocative title.

Can't you people just once express your opinion on a slightly non-candidate oriented thread without whipping it out and waving it in the other side's face?

Otherwise, good post.

[DarienComp]

6. I've got a question...

How come nobody objected to any of these rules until Hillary started losing?

[Tyler Durden]

8. I objected to them since last year.

I have an email trail as long as your arm.

I've been posting that this was a crock since November and December.

Some of us have even attended local party meetings and racked up phone bills calling Dean's office since last year.

[dbmk]

9. A couple of answers:

"And who makes up all these rules anyway?"

The DNC. The rules are approved by the Democratic convention, August 19, 2006.
The rules can be found here:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf
Rule 20.C.1 through 9 - especially 5 and 6 - are the ones you would probably be interested in.

"Again, are they anointed by god that they get to make up these rules?"

No. They are anointed by the DNC which seats the R&BC. The DNC that set up the rules they uphold. So to be clear; They do not make up the rules.

The rules for the R&BC can be found here:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf

"And why do they get to make up punishments for breaking the rules? Who elected them judge and jury?"

The DNC. The rules are approved by the Democratic convention. And the DNC apparently wanted to give them the discretion of applying punishment on a case by case basis.

"Do they hold trails for the dastardly rule breakers?"

I would suspect they have some sort of hearings/committee meetings. In this case they issued warnings to the impending rulebreakers before the rules were broken.

"Or do they just make up this shit as they go along?"

As far as they have discretion to apply further or reduced sanctions given circumstances, you can say that they make it up as they go along. In this case, however, they did warn the rulebreakers of the repercussions.

Hope that clears up a few of your questions?

[TheDoorbellRang]

12. It says something about our American education system

when a citizen of Denmark needs to explain to Americans how the American political parties work. It's not so much a matter of not having knowledge, but more a matter of having the curiosity to seek out knowledge and the understanding of the research tools available to get that knowledge.

One of the mindsets we need to change in this country in order to form a more perfect union -- knowledge and education should be something to be admired, not derided as "elite."

[GihrenZabi]

10. Lots of things

I really don't know the history behind why NH and IA became these "first run" States, but it's all kinds of stupid. I'd love to see the primary season condensed into a month or two, maybe five weeks, just get it the hell over with.

Why should a candidate drop out when the race is lost? Ask the question honestly - because the General Election needs to be prepared for. The Party needs to start fundraising. They need to work as a whole to motivate the Party base and get the independents they need.

This is not complicated - your primary vote ceases to mean anything when you're voting for the loser past a certain point. It's just math.

In terms of who makes the rules...this is why I register independent. I want nothing to do with either Party establishment because both of them make as much sense as a submarine with screen doors...

[TheDoorbellRang]

11. There is no constitutional law saying a political party HAS to have primaries

The smaller parties like the green or libertarian parties don't have national primaries -- their party officials just choose a candidate.

When I was reading "Team of Rivals" about Lincoln's ascension to the White House, I learned that the system was set up so that what we call super delegates today were the only ones involved in the process back then.

I think as the two main political parties grew they realized it might be beneficial to have the input of the little people -- us -- and the primary system was born. Various states started having primaries to let the party elders know who they would choose, but the system as we know it today didn't evolve until after 1968. In 1968 the party elders' choice of Humphrey over the popular choice of McCarthy resulted in chaos at the convention (and then of course we lost in the GE). Thus began the sea change in the democratic party's nominating process that eventually resulted in the pledged and super delegate system we have today.

The system will most likely change again after this year's primaries, but I'm not sure how. I do like the idea of smaller states starting the season; it allows for lesser known and lesser monied candidates to have a chance. Also I like our proportional races rather than winner-take-all for the same reasons. I'm sure chances will be made, but what they will be remains to be seen.