Challenge Match. damajikninja v Animal: National Primaries, page 1

---

Da Majik Ninja [color=#80c0e0]here, in my first ATS Debate. I'd like to thank [/color]The Vagabond [color=#80c0e0]for allowing me the opportunity to participate. A respectful tip 'o the hat is also due to my colleague [/color]Animal - I look forward to this intellectual debate.

---

Audio Version of this Post
File: ptspod_2801.mp3

OPENING STATEMENT
The National Primaries are considered the first major step toward winning a seat in the Oval Office. The results of these primaries is what leads each political party to the decision of who they will nominate for their party ticket at their National Convention. In each state, voters decide whom they think should represent their party in the election. In some states, the outcome of the state primary may even "lock in" the vote at the National Convention.

However, the system has a flaw. States do not hold their primaries on the same day - some do it earlier than others. This presents a problem, as the outcomes of the earlier state primaries influence other voters in other states. The candidates themselves might even see failure in the early primaries as a sign that they should give up the race - even if he/she would have won the remaining states. This makes for a rather non-democratic approach, as the states with earlier primaries, in effect, get to influence which candidates drop-out.

As you might imagine, states fight over who gets to have the earlier primaries. It has turned into an all out political street fight to the point that State Convention delegates are having trouble maintaining control of the process.

To solve these problems, and to give every state fair representation, it is my position that there should be a single National Primary day.

The American people have expressed that this is what they want. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll concluded that three-quarters of the registered voters would rather have a single national primary day. Half of the voters surveyed by the poll said that states with early primaries have too much influence on who wins party nominations.

Even Senator Mel Martinez, R-Florida, has acknowledged the issue in a recent statement.

"For the future, we may need to think about how we control the process better and have maybe a national primary day." -- Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida

So not only is a single national primary day the will of the people, and the recommendation of congressional party delegates, it would also greatly simplify the entire process of organizing the primaries. States and party delegates would no longer have to squabble over who gets to go first, as everyone would go at the same time. This would promote fairness and a democratic approach. Any stance otherwise would be in favor of allowing some states to have more influence over who our Country's president will be.

Thank you for reading. We will now hear an opening statement from Animal.

Opening Statement

To begin I would like to say thank-you to the ATS staff, especially Vagabond, for offering me this opportunity to contribute to the ATS community. I would also like to say thank-you and good luck to Damajikninja for challenging me to this match; I look forward to a friendly, intellectual debate. I will be arguing the CON side of the statement: "American political parties owe the people a single national primary day, in the interest of equal voice for all voters".

Position on the Issue

Presidential Political Primaries and Caucuses are an essential element in the process of selecting the ideal candidate for each political party. Under the current system the primary / caucus season begins with Iowa in the beginning of January followed closely by New Hampshire. Other than “Super Tuesday” where somewhere around 22 states vote for their candidates there is a sprinkling of primaries that range from February to June ending with Puerto Rico and North Dakota.

Today there is a growing consensus that this system is flawed. Many feel that Iowa and New Hampshire are given too much power in the selection of the candidates for each party and that as such the system is undemocratic as some have more power than others. While it is true that candidates who do poorly in these first contests will often drop out of the race it is in many cases not a surprise as those candidates who leave at this early stage would face the same results time in and time out.

It is also important to note that the roll attributed to these states is not always how things work out as well. For example in this years election cycle Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the obvious candidate for the Democratic Party. Many believed that she would claim the parties nomination with little contest; however Iowa changed that. Clinton’s inevitable rise to he top was caused to falter by the surprise win of Barrak Obama. Then in turn the power generated by Obama’s win in Iowa was debased by Clinton’s win in New Hampshire.

Still many still argue that the system is flawed and that it should be changed as the system, as is, serves no function. This however is not the case. It is important to note that the separation of primaries and caucuses over a longer period of time serves two vital rolls in the presidential election.

First this system grants the candidates an opportunity to spend time in communities within the states that they are about to take part in a primary election. This allows them the opportunity to get to know the people, to listen to the concerns and desires of the people, and thus formulate positions that more appropriately reflect the will of the people. link

Second, keeping the primaries separate also allows candidates with less money than the rich or the front runners to remain viable in the election process. The separation of primaries over 5 months allows for these candidates to spend money in one location and then raise more before they need to spend it in another. If all 50 states held their primaries on the same day not only would the candidates not get to mingle with the people, many would not even be able to afford advertising in the many of the states in the country. This would lead the candidates to focus on the BIG states that offered the highest number of candidates leaving smaller states out in the cold. link

Based on this information it is my position that Presidential Primaries should NOT be held on the same day. To do so would disenfranchise more people than the current systems does and would sever a vital connection between the candidate and the people.

This concludes my Opening Statement and Position on the Issue. Thanks you for taking the time to read this. Now we will hear a reply from my fine opponent, Damajikninja.

Thank you for stating your position, Animal. It appears that we are in agreement on certain things.

From Animal's Opening Statements
Today there is a growing consensus that this system is flawed. Many feel that Iowa and New Hampshire are given too much power in the selection of the candidates for each party and that as such the system is undemocratic as some have more power than others.

You are quite right - there is a growing consensus that the system is flawed, and for the reasons you have lad out here. I'm glad we can agree that states with the early primaries DO enjoy more influence on the selection of a candidate than other states. It appears we share the opinion that the current system is un-democratic and unfair.

The next portion of your opening remarks detail a real-world example of this problem in the current election cycle. There's no reason that Hilary (or any candidate) should be perceived as "more powerful" simply because they won the vote in one state. As you so aptly pointed out, just because you win one state doesn't mean you will win another. And just because you loose the first three states doesn't mean you are going to loose the rest of them.

The current system allows candidates make decisions to stay or drop out of the race, based only on the votes in a few states. So what if the rest of the Nation wanted to keep the guy? Too bad. As it stands today, states like Iowa and New Hampshire have more influence over each candidate's campaign decisions than any other state. So much for equal representation.

A single National Primary Day would eliminate this problem. With all states announcing their vote results on the same day, they each share equal influence over the race. The democratic process is restored, and the candidates each get a fair shot at seeing the ENTIRE country's vote.

In your opening statement, you supported your position with two ideas. The first was that the current system allows candidates to focus their campaign on the states that are about to vote. Again, this is actually a problem, because since the first few states are the most important in the current system, the candidates put all their efforts into them while many states never get a visit because they hold their primaries too late. The system should not focus on making things easier for the candidates - it should cater to the will of the people and the equal representation of each state's vote.

The second pillar to your position is that a single National Primary Day would hinder candidates with less money. But the current system already has candidates with more/less money. Low-budget candidates are no more hindered in a single day scenario as they are in the current system. As a matter of fact, a single day would allow low-budget campaigns more freedom to plan their nationwide strategies, since they wouldn't have base their focus on the states that get to go first and the outcome of their voting. The single day system would allow them to concentrate their efforts on their constituency, not the voting schedule.

onlinejournal.com...

We need a national primary and caucus day...that will end this war of attrition that eliminates the least-financed candidates regardless of the quality of their ideas, and also ends the practice of states jockeying for position.

You also stated that a single day system would cause candidates to focus on big states with more votes. But that's what you are supposed to do in an election... get as many votes as you can. You go after your constituency - the people that will support you. But the single day system would make things MORE FAIR for the states,because the candidates wouldn't be so compelled to campaign in the states with early primary days. My position allows each state an equal shot at the campaign trail.

The Single Day connects candidates with the voters. The Current System severs that connection, and instead builds a connection between the candidates and the states with early primaries.

---

Question #1: What importance do you place on the fact that the majority of citizens and even some congressional delegates are asking for a Single National Primary day?

Question #2: In your opinion, should a small number of states have more influence over the election process than others?

Question #3: Do you feel that the results of the early primaries might influence voters in other states with later primaries?

Question #4: Do you deny that Mitt Romney's recent decision to end his campaign was heavily influenced by the outcome of only a few state primaries?

Question #5: If you were running for president, wouldn't you rather have the freedom to focus on your true constituency instead of just states with early primaries?

I look forward to your response.

In the opening of your first response you quoted me to show we agreed on a certain topic.
Actually, unfortunately you saw agreement where there was none. When you quoted me you did so out of context. I was not saying that I believe that the system is flawed only that there seems to be a growing consensus that there is issues with the system.

Another interesting point that you made in your response was this:

The next portion of your opening remarks detail a real-world example of this problem in the current election cycle. There's no reason that Hilary (or any candidate) should be perceived as "more powerful" simply because they won the vote in one state. As you so aptly pointed out, just because you win one state doesn't mean you will win another. And just because you loose the first three states doesn't mean you are going to loose the rest of them.

This response to the fourth paragraph in my opening statement demonstrates a failure to comprehend my point and the MOST critical issue that makes elections undemocratic. That is the mainstream media. Hillary Clinton was not viewed as “more powerful” because she won one state. In fact she did not win the first primary/ caucus state Obama did. Clinton was viewed as “more powerful” because of the way the mainstream media had portrayed her as the likely presidential candidate for years. For example:

In 2004:

That moment, in many ways, captures the sudden reversal of the political fortune of Mrs. Clinton, the wife of a former president and a woman who has been talked about as a possible presidential candidate herself, most likely in 2008.

link

Again in 2004:

Which portends well for Hillary Rodham Clinton as a presidential candidate in 2008. Not only did Kerry fail this year, but Edwards, who many considered her best potential primary challenger four years from now, has sunk. Her path is clearer now than even she probably could have hoped.

link

As it is plaint o see Hillary Clinton’s run for the nomination has been pumped into the collective conscious for years by the main stream media. The media’s roll in elections has been growing for decades. One of the major reasons that people continually want to see their primaries moved ahead is to be viable in terms of media exposure.

Since Roosevelt’s Progressive era, the influence of party leaders over nominations has declined, while the influence of the mass media has grown. Over the past 50 years, the emergence of new communications technologies, especially television, and changes in party rules have worked to enhance the media’s presence in the selection of presidential candidates.
Since the first televising of a primary election, New Hampshire in 1952, network coverage has become increasingly important in the scheduling of primaries and party caucuses. Other states now compete with New Hampshire to be “first,” and to draw the most media attention.

link

Another perfect example of how this institution is the true culprit for the undemocratic process of primaries and caucuses is the time each media outlet gives to each candidate in debates and other forums. This can be seen in a document prepared for several interest groups entitled:

DETERRING DEMOCRACY:
HOW THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY

To give you a feel for what this report talks about I will past in the index:

Executive Summary 1
Formation of an Unsuitable Sponsor 3
Bipartisan Negotiations 5
Lack of Transparency 7
Format Manipulation 8
Candidate Exclusion 10
Issue Exclusion 14
Corporate Sponsorship 16
Legal Challenges 18
Solution: Citizens’ Debate Commission 20
Conclusion 22

link

These concepts are not new, especially to us here on ATS where people like Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich get so much attention and we see how they are systematically excluded by the media thus crippling their campaigns.

In your last response Damajikninja you said that my assertion that having primaries split up allows candidates to spend time campaigning in the states they are preparing to have a contest in does not allow them to visit more states, because the states who have the latest primaries never get a visit. First off I am not so convinced this is true, I do wish you would have supplied proof of this claim.

What I do know to be true is this, if the candidates have only ONE contest, that is a super primary, then only the states who offer the most delegates will get visits. This would mean even less contact with the people of the country and is not democratic in nature. When you say the primary set up should not be set to make things easier of the candidates but for the people, that is exactly what it is set up to do. It surprises me that you make the claim that this is what the candidates should be doing. You yourself said:

You also stated that a single day system would cause candidates to focus on big states with more votes. But that's what you are supposed to do in an election... get as many votes as you can. You go after your constituency - the people that will support you.

It fascinates me that you think focusing on only the large states in the primary would be more democratic than focusing more intimately on as many states as possible in a multi-cycle primary session.

To answer your question:

#1) I think that the peoples call, and thus their representatives, for single day elections has al lot to do with the over all unfair nature of presidential elections. Without the hype of the mainstream media no state and no candidate would have more power than another. The call for a change in the system I believe to be in large part due to a misunderstanding of how and why the system is as it is and the impacts the change to a single day primary would have on the democratic nature of the process.

#2) I can in absolute terms that no single state should have more power than any other.

#3) I do believe that early primary results can have an impact on other voters, especially the undecided. I do not believe this gives early states “more power” those who are so easily convinced by the out come in Iowa or New Hampshire would be influenced by something else in their stead. It is my stance that the entity with “more power” is the media who hypes the outcomes for their own political motivations.

#4) I do deny that Mitt Romney’s decision to end his campaign was the result of the out come of “a few state primaries”. It was the result of his poor showing in the Super Tuesday contest where approximately 22 states voted, a system closer to what you are touting than what I am.

#5) If I were running for president I would want to be able to reach out to as many of my constituency as possible. I would abhor being limited to only those states that offered me the largest advantage in a contest.

My point is simple. Though many see the issue as the fault of the primary’s form it is in fact the roll that the media now plays in the election cycle that causes all the present woes.

Animal, my apologies for thinking we agreed on that issue. I see now that you were simply stating that there is a growing consensus among the American People and their leaders that a National Primary day is needed, and that you disagree with all of them.

I also want to thank you for better explaining the fourth post in your opening statement. I had no idea you were making an argument about the mainstream media. Matter of fact, that paragraph makes absolutely no mention of the media in any way, so you can see why I may have "failed to comprehend" what you were saying.

In fact, you spend quite a bit of your last reply talking about the mainstream media and how they influence elections. But once again, I have "failed to comprehend" your argument. There are countless things that can influence an election, and the media is certainly one of them, but how is that relevant to the topic of this debate?

Oh wait I see it now. You say that the mainstream media is to blame because they broadcast the results of each primary, thus influencing the people and the candidates. You also say that they are rather influential in organizing and scheduling the primaries. But I still fail to see the significance of this argument, as the media is simply reporting whats going on. If there was only a single national primary day as I suggest, the media wouldn't be a problem would it? They would simply build up hype to the National Primary day, cover it tirelessly, and report the results in the morning or late that night.

Furthermore, you make the claim that the media is unfair in their coverage of the presidential debates. While this may be true, yet again I "fail to comprehend" how this has anything to do with our debate topic. We are arguing the PRO and CON perspectives on having a single national primary day, right?

I mentioned in an earlier debate post that having multiple national primary days can compel candidates to focus on those with earlier primaries. You asked for some evidence of this. Well, ask and you shall receive.

projects.washingtonpost.com...

As you can see, the lighter colored states have had fewer visits. All of these states have later primary dates (except North Dakota).

Kentucky - May 20
Indiana - May 6
Ohio - March 4
Wisconsin - Feb 19
North Dakota - Feb 5 (Super Tuesday)
South Dakota - June 3
Oregon - May 20
Hawaii - Feb 19
Vermont - March 4
Rhode Island - March 4
www.votesmart.org...

It seems to me that the states with the earlier primaries get the special treatment. A single national primary day would allow the candidates to go to where their constituency is - not where the state primary calendar tells them to.

You also said that a super primary would cause candidates to go to the big states, and not the smaller ones, and that this is undemocratic. Candidates would go after the most number of votes, which might mean visits to larger states that have more people in them. But candidates could campaign in any state they felt necessary and at anytime they choose, instead of following the primary calendar. The issue isn't bigger states vs. smaller states, its early states getting to influence other states, and early states getting to influence candidates.

Question: Would you support a splitting the National Election day into multiple days, over a range of months?

“It seems to me that the states with the earlier primaries get the special treatment. A single national primary day would allow the candidates to go to where their constituency is - not where the state primary calendar tells them to.”

Thank you for posting the map showing the number of Primary Events. I notice that Iowa and New Hampshire have the highest # of events, about 3 or 4 times as many as those states that follow in the rankings. An interesting point to note, one that supports my claims in earlier posts, is that the states that follow in ranking are the larger states.

You seem concerned that states with earlier primaries would get special treatment, so it seems odd that you would then justify the obvious reaction to a single day primary, which would undoubtedly be the candidates flooding the larger states with more delegates with events and ignoring smaller states.

Using the premise that more attention to the primary states equates to an undemocratic process yet asserting that more attention to larger states is simply candidates paying more attention to their “constituency” seems like a double standard.

You raise the issue that my attention to the media is a digression from the topic of the pros and cons of a single primary day. While I can understand this statement to a limited degree I think that paying attention to the factors that ultimately are influencing the publics and the candidates perception of who is viable is vital to the discussion. While you maintain that the multi date primary schedule is ultimately to blame for some candidates being un-viable in the process I maintain that the media is really the culprit in this situation. Not because they report who won or lost in the early primaries but for how they shape public opinion on candidates.

I think a perfect example of this in the current cycle is the media’s treatment of Ron Paul, Denis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and all the other republican candidates whose names I don’t even know (thanks to the media). While I can understand the confusion of how this relates to the topic of the debate, my first post on the issue was an attempt to make the issue clear.

Since Roosevelt’s Progressive era, the influence of party leaders over nominations has declined, while the influence of the mass media has grown. Over the past 50 years, the emergence of new communications technologies, especially television, and changes in party rules have worked to enhance the media’s presence in the selection of presidential candidates.
Since the first televising of a primary election, New Hampshire in 1952, network coverage has become increasingly important in the scheduling of primaries and party caucuses. Other states now compete with New Hampshire to be “first,” and to draw the most media attention.

link
As it does with many other factors in the presidential race, the media has hyped the roll of early states. Of course before technologically advanced media people herd who own the early primaries only through other means. The roll that main stream media now plays is scales beyond what it was nice able to. Furthermore, as the media is now a corporate endeavor the media outlets themselves are biased and work to make their choice more electable than the others.

To reply to your question: No I see no justification for changing the Election Day process.



Question #1: When you refer to “Candidates Constituency” do you include all party members in the entire US or do you focus on party members in key states?

Question #2: Are you saying that only states with more delegates’ posses the “constituency” of the candidates?

Question #3: Why is it you that see it more democratic for states to get more attention (and thus political power) based on size but undemocratic for states to get more attention based on position in multiple date primaries?