tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post6193182446629544625..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: If Taking Away Delegates Won't Stop Frontloading, What Will?Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-50474712642553225782008-08-30T12:35:00.000-04:002008-08-30T12:35:00.000-04:00Well, once again my response is too long for a sim...Well, once again my response is too long for a simple comment. I've shifted it into a new post. I will say this here though:<BR/><BR/>Oh Rob, I'm not a pessimist. I'm a realist. This is an extremely complicated issue with which to deal. And I take seriously the job of describing those complexities here. This isn't news to anyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-72462854676317322682008-08-30T11:16:00.000-04:002008-08-30T11:16:00.000-04:00The whole public/private nature of primaries bothe...The whole public/private nature of primaries bothers me anyway. Why are states funding the political activities of parties?<BR/><BR/>But given that we have evolved a system like that, maybe the answer is to funnel funding through the national parties. Something like the public financing system, where tax money (with an opt-out checkoff box) goes to the national parties for the purpose of conducting primaries. If the state doesn't want to hold the primary when the national party wants, the national party returns the money to the state and leaves them on their own.<BR/><BR/>It would still be possible to circumvent the rules set by the national party, and in fact there wouldn't actually be a monetary penalty, since the money would flow back to the state. But there would be a headache in setting up a parallel election system to whatever the national party had established.<BR/><BR/>In some ways, I think the "headache" factor might be more effective than fiscal incentives. After all, when you're in government, it's someone else's money. But it's <I>your</I> headache.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-4292639955135051952008-08-30T09:20:00.000-04:002008-08-30T09:20:00.000-04:00The winning candidate will cave, just like Obama d...<I>The winning candidate will cave, just like Obama did, particularly if the states involved are battleground states.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, Obama did not cave--he refused to seat the delegates when they had a chance of changing the outcome, and agreed to seat them only when the outcome was a foregone conclusion. In effect, the two states, MI and FL, had no voice in selecting the nominees.<BR/><BR/>But here's another solution that avoid some of the dicey politics: if the state fails to schedule a rule-compliant primary or caucus by a certain date, then the national party automatically conducts a mail-in primary on a certain date and that primary is used to select the pledged delegates. In addition, for candidates to appear on the mail-in ballot, they must not campaign in the state until after a certain date, so as not to give any legitimacy to a non-compliant primary or caucus. Make it written into the rules, so it happens automatically, and set the calendar in advance so it can happen in an orderly fashion.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16556787198127783137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-70755755259696467152008-08-30T08:43:00.000-04:002008-08-30T08:43:00.000-04:00I like your concept, Allen, but I don't think it w...I like your concept, Allen, but I don't think it will work. The winning candidate will cave, just like Obama did, particularly if the states involved are battleground states.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to see a solution, but I am getting to be as big a pessimist as Josh after reading this blog for the past year. I am afraid we are headed to a national primary which would probably eliminate the chances for a candidate like Obama or McCain.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-13278528115168668732008-08-30T08:37:00.000-04:002008-08-30T08:37:00.000-04:00"Now a financial penalty would be effective, but t..."Now a financial penalty would be effective, but that implies the federal government is in some way funding elections. And withholding funding for elections is a potentially dangerous business."<BR/><BR/>Maybe a better alternative is to have the national parties fund the primaries - but a state only receives the money if they adhere to the schedule. These are after all party events: they are choosing their nominees for the general election. And it should avoid the potential problem you cite above.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this requires a level of cooperation between the two parties that will be challenging to achieve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-90374816925892451982008-08-30T07:57:00.000-04:002008-08-30T07:57:00.000-04:00I think taking away the delegate would work, but t...I think taking away the delegate would work, but the discretion needs to be taking out of the picture. Early voting = 0 delegates, no exceptions, no appeals, no discretion.<BR/><BR/>Then I would add in a provision that, if there is a problem with the state legislature, the national party will consider helping the state party conduct either a mail-in primary or caucuses, with a certain application process and calendar specified.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16556787198127783137noreply@blogger.com