Some states consider cutting 2012 primaries to save money

When all else fails, cut out the democratic process.

This article explains how some states find it necessary to cut funding to election primaries.

Skimpy budgets are cutting into the way states pay for schools, health care, and now -- even primary elections. At least six states are considering either canceling or delaying their 2012 presidential primaries, mostly to save money.

Washington and Kansas are considering skipping the presidential primaries altogether, allowing parties to pick candidates through caucuses.

Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong, but isn't this a part of the process? Could this have an effect on outcomes of high-profile races when we divert funds and opportunities to vote individually? Is this the first step to the government controlling the votes even more? Sure it's just a primary, but that's where it starts.

What do you think?

Yahoo

haha... looks like we're stuck with Obama
way to go America...

also... 2012... hmmmm... well if its all gonna end in 2012 why bother with that whole pestering election process? Wouldnt it be pointless?

This statement, concerning Washington's primaries, deserves more investigation...

"The last presidential primary we had in our state -- the Republicans only used 50 percent of the results and the Democrats did not use the results at all," said Patty Murphy, voting systems specialist for the Washington Secretary of State. She said eliminating the primary could save the state $10 million.

From the OP's source news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by WTFover

Yup, see what I mean? I was wondering if anyone would catch that.




I knew the process was a farce, but now they are taking away the process! Funny thing is, I remember someone saying that the 2012 elections would never happen. It's a far stretch but this helps that along.

I was wondering when they would quit even pretending anymore.

Am I wrong or did they say they pretty much ignored the outcomes anyhow?

reply to post by lastrebel
Everything is set in motion before we even have a say. From what I can gather from the MSM, the republicans are set to push Romney forward, making insulting attempts to play off RomneyCare as a matter of intent, rather than what was written into the legislation.....and Obama will go fro the Dems.

Let's not forget that no one will even mention Ron Paul, even though he won the straw poll.

As part of the electoral process, primaries didn't begin until 1832. Plus, there are no provisions in the Constitution for the electoral process.

That being said, any oppourtunity to take advantage of the system will be attempted by EITHER party for their own benefit.

It astounds me that they have bloated salaries, wasteful spending, but "cut" critical items only to prove a point and garner headlines.

reply to post by beezzer

So if the primary process was not built into the consitution, should we even complain?

Not going to happen as all 50 States to hold primaries. Nothing will change that.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

It looks to me like they are trying to change the process, in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

It looks to me like they are trying to change the process, in the name of fiscal responsibility.

This will not happen as the State that denies it's residents a primary is dening the state the Constitution, This is how they will start it.

NJ was slated to be one of 9 States who were supposed to hold a primary in 08 but it was deemed unfair that only a select few states would hold a primary hence how we got the Superdelegate Conference for 2012 which you should start to hear about by the Fall.

Do we really need primaries in every state? Is that not why candidates have to raise a billion or two just to run for office? The whole thing is ridiculous.

We may not want to go back to the smoke filled rooms and backroom deals before we had primary madness. However, conventions used to decide the candidates and it seems to me we got better candidates from them than doing the popularity contests and money raising contests that we have now.

Iowa does a caucus thing. Maybe a few states could do that.

In any case each party has to decide how it will select its Presidential candidate and it need not be through primary elections nor does each one have to be the same.

It is definitely time for a different system of putting candidates before the public. In the UK, the election cycle is far shorter and less expensive because of it. We already have people talking about an election that is over a year and a half away and some will start the money rush soon. That is ridiculous.

If anything, we need a law that limits our election cycle to four months to campaign to become a candidate through whatever process each party chooses to use and four months for the actual Presidential campaigns.

Anyone who cannot make up their minds as to whom to vote for in four months time is either a total idiot or just not all that interested and isn't going to vote anyway.

Some financial jobs require 3 and 4 interviews before you actually get the gig as the purpose of The Primary is to serve as the Preliminary Interview while the General is the Final Interview.

It is not fair that only 1/8 of the states be allowed to vote in the primary.

I'd rather see states pumping in money into primaries becauses without them what are we defending.