From Animal's Second Reply
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.
Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire have WAY more events than any other state. You are absolutley right. And guess what? They have early primary dates.
Imagine that? The states with early primaries get more attention than those with later primaries! This completely echoes my comments in previous
What I do not understand is your following assertion:
An interesting point to note, one that supports my claims in earlier posts, is that the states that follow in ranking are the larger
Ok, there will always be more events in states that have more people in them. That should be simple logic. But how does this support your claims -
and exactly what claims were those anyways? That my position would cause candidates to focus on big states? Well, this data is from the CURRENT
system. I "fail to comprehend".
You seem concerned that states with earlier primaries would get special treatment...
...which I have demonstrated...
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.
With a Super Primary, candidates will give attention according to population (which is where the vote comes from). A state with 10 million people
obviously does not need as many campaign events as a state with 400 million people. In this scenario, the candidates will go to the PEOPLE not the
In the current system, the states at the end of the primary calendar get NO SAY AT ALL, as most of the candidates have already dropped out by the time
their primary is held.
Which system do you think represents the people best?
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.
I know this is a debate, but you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Is the president elected by popular vote, or according to which states
vote first? Popular vote, right. So where is the double standard in denying a system that gives advantages, and supporting a system that brings the
vote back to the people?
The remainder of your post yet again focuses on the media's influence over the process. I particularly liked this part:
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.
...but earlier, in response to one of my questions, you stated...
Without the hype of the mainstream media no state and no candidate would have more power than another.
AGREED - Take away a drawn out primary process, and BAM, the media cannot spin the perspectives between voting. They might spin leading up the the
vote, but don't they always? Sure they shape public opinion. But this is irrelevant and detracts from our debate.
The issue at hand is giving equal voting opportunities to every person in the US, via their states, by not having multiple days for primaries.
Congressmen, activists, radio hosts, and the majority of people agree with me - why can't you?
Or do you?
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.
So you would rather reach as many people as possible, and not be limited by the "contest" of early primaries?
And when I asked if you would support changing the Election into a multiple day process, such as the current primary system, you said:
No I see no justification for changing the Election Day process.
Why? Because the current primary system is flawed, and you know it.
Alright, time now for me to answer some questions of yours.
Maybe I am misusing the term "constituency", but I am referring to "the people that support, or could be convinced to support"
a candidates platform. In other words, the people that a candidate would want to campaign to.
No certainly not. Large states are not the only place a candidate will want to go. You cannot win by Texas and California alone.
But you would certainly spend some time there, proportionate to the amount of people there, and also depending on whether or not the people in that
state support you.
Why? Because presidents are elected by popular vote. If there are more people in a state, then that state obviously owns more of
the vote than others. What IS undemocratic is allowing certain (often smaller) states the opportunity to shape the presidential line-up before anyone
else gets a chance to vote.