Primaries Pros And Cons

Why Iowa? by David Redlawsk, Caroline J. Tolbert and Todd Donovan discusses and explains in detail the Iowa Caucuses and how vital of a role it plays in the Presidential nominating process. The overall text covers several topics including the differences between a caucus and a primary, the rules governing the Iowa Caucuses and the sequential nature of the presidential nominating process.

The Golden Age of nominating conventions were started as a mechanism to organize and unify the party. After the civil war, all the convention become deliberative convention. People get the nominations by cutting deals and bring the different factions and people into a collation.

In Primary Matters by upfront they exhibit how the major parties choose their candidates, starting with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. The New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses have too much influence over the other states, especially for being so rural and not very diverse. “Since 1952, the New Hampshire primary has been the first major test for presidential hopefuls… During the 1970s, the Iowa caucuses, which take place earlier, began to gain importance.” (upfront) The primary and caucuses are based on tradition, it's been kept because there hasn't really been a real need to change. This system has turned into barely more than a televised advertisement for the candidates. The real importance isn't their opinions and

A primary election is where voters in each state votes for a presidential candidate by

In this argument, replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote is shown to provide a more unified and knowledgeable country. As shown through Spenser Mestel and Clifton B. Parker, a popular vote would empower all voters and allow minorities and majorities to hold equal power. Additionally, the Electoral College remains irrelevant because the basis for its creation was eliminated by the Anti-Slavery Amendments or the Thirteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the Electoral College restricts presidential candidates from utilizing a transregional approach. This not only divides the nation by state lines, but disenfranchises minorities and majorities alike. Although the Electoral College provides a sure way of electing a president, a single popular vote would serve the democratic country more effectively.

Closed primaries and caucuses are damaging our democracy and limiting our voices. Our closed contest system makes us disenfranchised from voting for a possible nominee. A nominee that is by the people, for the people and not for lobbyist. In America, we have a system of closed and open primaries/caucuses every four years in a presidential race. Twenty-eight states are closed primaries in some form (Ballotpedia). With over half of the states being closed contest, millions of proud voters are left out from voting or it becomes increasingly harder to vote. This leaves us with the question of what would have happened if those millions were able to vote today or in the pass. History might have been different. This closed contest system has been

Most primaries in major counties have been canceled and annulled due to allegations of votes rigging, violence, threats and supremacy battles. It is unfortunate that the youth are being recruited to facilitate this uncouth behavior. Already, use of hired goons and hooliganism by aspirants has been outlawed.

Although voters do not have an obligation publicly state which party they align with, they still must only align with one party during the primary. Therefore, their ballots do not present every possible candidate, and thus, their scope of presidential candidates is limited. The goal of a primary should be to reflect how the state will likely vote during the general election. Blanket primaries accomplish this by allowing voters to select the best candidate from every choice available. This also shows how certain candidates fair in comparison with other parties’ candidates. Parties still have the ability to nominate their candidate with the highest number of votes, but the blanket primary gives more power to the voters than to political parties. Political candidates must market themselves to voters as an aggregate in the state, and cannot rely on party affiliation to be a driving force come primary season. Therefore, while open and blanket primaries are extremely similar, it is the fact that blanket primaries allow more freedom for voters that makes them the favorable

The next benchmark changed this aspect of an overbearing party, however it would create large amount of power now going to the candidate themselves. Wilson felt that there was an absence of strong leadership in government, and sought a national primary to enhance an individual candidates strengths, allowing them to establish their own popular constituency. FDR carried out Wilson’s plan, and being that FDR established the modern presidency, every president has continued this. The consequences of this has been a connection between the people and the president. By allowing the primaries, if gives the people a chance to input their decision into presidential selection long before the Framers intended them to be able to. The candidates now individually raise issues important to them, and in fact have fallen into the trap that the Framers’ feared. Candidates play on issues the public finds important to get attention, and in the process make their own commitments to the public on what they are going to do about it, when in reality, they do not always have the power to be able to do the things they say they will. This has changed the public’s selection on the president’s selection from the qualifications of the president, to what they promise to do on certain

Democrats have a phobia against winner-take-all primaries that dates back to mostly forgotten floor fights at the 1968 convention and fears in 1972 that George Wallace could win the nomination. As a result, the party boasts an almost religious devotion to selecting convention delegates by proportional representation by congressional districts. Without the same tempestuous history (before 2016), the Republicans lack similar inhibitions about winner-take-all primaries.

Throughout the years, the United States has been choosing its president using the electoral college, voter ID laws to reduce voter turnout, gerrymandering to choose our representatives, and using methods to select candidates in the primaries. Through the electoral college, their presidents have been unfairly chosen using the winner take all system. In this system, if they, the voters, choose the losing party, they might as well go home because of how it works. To make matters even worse, voter ID laws have been making their laws even more difficult to surpass, in able to reduce the number of votes. Gerrymandering is used to give a party a special advantage by using the packing and cracking method, and as for the primaries, they are held by

Winning the primary Ballot procedures Developing a personal following for the "party 's" nomination Incumbent advantage Sophomore surge Using the perqs of office Campaigning for / against Congress Impact of the way we elect individuals to Congress Legislators closely tied to local concerns Weak party leadership Primary versus general campaigns Kinds of elections and primaries: general versus primary elections Differences between primary and general campaigns What works in a general election may not work in a primary Different voters, workers, and media attention Must mobilize activists with money and motivation to win nomination Must play to the politics of activists Iowa caucuses Held in February of general election year

Americans feel that their voices are not being heard through the electors; however, primaries and caucuses provide an outlet for those still inclined to participate. Primaries and Caucuses are both considered primary elections but differ on their method of voting. Caucuses are organized party meetings where voters registered with

Their laws ensure that their primaries will happen before every other state’s primaries will happen. As a result of primaries in these states being the first ones, the have a big influence on the election. This was made into a law so on one would mess around with the rules and also so it did not get confusing. It was also made into a law so states couldn’t blame other states and so there was not as many problems as a whole.

After this commission was created, many states started to require delegates to be chosen at caucuses and primaries. This idea caught on quickly and with each election, more states joined in on this idea. Also, it helped with participation rates because people had more of a say in who the delegates were than they ever used to.