Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Massachusetts Primary Scheduled for 31 December 2007

By

Wouldn’t that be great. Sadly, as The Herald reports, our legislators lost their nerve:

Arguing that Massachusetts shouldn’t be ignored by presidential candidates, lawmakers Tuesday approved a bill to move the state’s presidential primary from March to February.

Moving the primary from March 4 to Feb. 5 will give Massachusetts voters more clout in the nominating process because the race will be all but decided after Super Tuesday, rendering the Bay State irrelevant, proponents said.

If legislators really want Massachusetts to have more clout, why not make our primary the first one. Let’s have it on New Year’s Eve, in combination with First Night. Polls can stay open to midnight, to boost turnout.

I can’t understand how, or why, Iowa and New Hampshire are able to hold on to their first-in-the-county dates. I suspect Iowa is favored by Democratic Party insiders because their caucus system gives disproportionate authority to the insiders. A state-sized smoke-filled room, if you will. Can someone better informed than me explain how this absurd system is perpetuated, and who benefits from it other than Democratic Party insiders with an edge on Iowa caucus-goers, and the citizens of New Hampshire.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. The primary system is broken, period. I do agree with you that I wish MA moved up their primary to something like November (why not next week?) just to show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

    <

    p>
    Yes, I realize that there are a few arguments to be made against it…but I still believe that the only thing that makes any sense is a national primary on ONE day, preferably a weekend day so more people will vote. After all, we have the Presidential election on ONE day, and that’s to elect the actual President, as opposed to simply a nominee.

    <

    p>
    Everyone across the country would have an equal voice on that day, IMO.

    • of a national primary day, where everyone votes. Since the  historical precedent that favored NH & Iowa has been removed, we’re heading down a slippery slope.

      <

      p>It says something about our system that we don’t make every effort to encourage people to vote, and these leapfrogging primaries aren’t helping. Instead, we’re moving into the realm of farce, and the ‘American Idol (Idle)’ comparisons  that I’ve read are apt.

      <

      p>Of course holding primaries on a weekend would be a problem, because we can’t have anything that competes with folks constitutional (and God given!)right to shop at the mall.

      <

      p>Now why would anyone not want people to vote? Hmmmmm…..

  2. …if MA allowed for mail-in balloting as in Oregon, MA could “start” its primary voting long before the IA caucuses or the NH primaries even begin.  Deadline for postmark: the current date of the primary.

    <

    p>
    Simple solution.

    • But you still run into the problem that this procedure does not officially tally the votes until well after NH, IA, and indeed Super Tuesday. This is why nobody knows of or cares about the Oregon primary.

      <

      p>
      If they tallied their mail-in votes before IA, then people would care. So it still all comes down to when the results are handed down, which gives certain segments of the primary-voting population far more weight than others.

      • But you still run into the problem that this procedure does not officially tally the votes until well after NH, IA, and indeed Super Tuesday.

        <

        p>
        The submitted ballots could be tallied on a daily, semi-weekly or weekly basis, and the results of the tallies announced.  The results are, of course, not “official” until the SecState certifies them.  But otherwise, what’s the issue?

        <

        p>
        But something like that would require the candidates to at least pay attention to states other than IA and NH.

        <

        p>
        The problem with Oregon is probably that they don’t tally the ballots as they come in and release ongoing tallies.

        • But it seems like the “keep up with the Joneses” syndrome is still present with this proposal. After all, periodic tallies of votes would lead to one state annnouncing that it is releasing tallies on Jan 1st, leading another to release on Dec. 30th to beat out those results, etc., etc. Maybe this would be better than the current system (in fact, almost anything would be, it seems), but I think the national primary is the only way around the fundamental problem.

          <

          p>
          Unless, of course, we simply scrapped the entire primary system altogether, placing us in line with the rest of the world. But since this is pretty unlikely, the national primary might be the way to go.

          • I’m not saying mail-in ballots aren’t a good idea

            <

            p>…what I was trying to suggest was another mode of operating primaries (of which I am not a fan) that would reduce the influence of states that are populated mostly by corn stalks and cows in the US presidential electoral process.

        • affects voters’ decisions.

          <

          p>It shouldn’t, but it does.  There’s enough people who like to vote for the winner that an early lead by Candidate A would be magnified if the tallies were announced, but not otherwise.

          <

          p>It’d be fun to watch like a horse race is, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle* applies here, with a rather significant [perhaps even first order] source of error.

          <

          p>

          <

          p> * Really, just an observer effect.

          • Peek into progress affects voters’ decisions.

            <

            p>but it can work both ways.  Candidates whose periodic tallies are behind can increase their “get out the vote” efforts.

            <

            p>No solution is perfect, but there might be some solutions that are more optimal than in letting states that have more cows and corn stalks than people have the first say.

  3. Might I suggest the first Tuesday after the first Monday, 2010?  After all, we’ll all be at the polls anyway, and this way we can get it out of the way.

    <

    p>Heck, invite other states to do it too, merely to pressure the Dems and GOPs to fix the problem, which is (a) the primaries starting too soon, and (b) the NH/IA preferred status.

    <

    p>P.S.  What happened to red new tags.  I miss ’em already.

    • Lets just have the 2012 primaries now.
      That would save hundreds of millions in wasted advertising and force a few of our elected representatives to spend some of the time that they have in office actualy representing, instead of just squandering the time campaigning for the next higher office.

      • But I wasn’t seeing them until I cleared out my browser cache. The CSS file got changed, and then changed back… clear out your cache, and you should be good again.

  4. Actually, I kind of like Iowa and NH as first primaries (or some other , due to the fact that they are little states; candidates can’t just blanket the airwaves – they actually have to go out and talk to people.  I remember back in ’80 friends traveling over to NH for a weekend and meeting ALL of the candidates in person.  Try that when this first blitz consists of insane flying all over the country rather than folks trying to take the measure of a person real life.

    <

    p>This whole rush to the front of the line is self-defeating.  What you would have is complete rule by money (even if the candidate in question turned out to be the Wizard of Oz).  Maybe we should just scrap the whole primary thing and go back to the good old days of the smoke-filled (well, maybe no smoke anymore) back rooms at the convention.

    <

    p>In reality, you could have the nominee wrapped up by the end of February.  What exactly is going to happen between then and the conventions in August?  I know most folks on this board are politically engaged, but for the most part the remaining primaries after the March Super Tuesday would be ignored by the general populace (barring the nominee caught in some compromising position with a goat).

    <

    p>And let’s hear no more talk about a National Primary.  Do we then have to set up a series of “pre primary” straw vote primaries so people can figure out who to vote for in the regular primary?

    • And let’s hear no more talk about a National Primary.  Do we then have to set up a series of “pre primary” straw vote primaries so people can figure out who to vote for in the regular primary?

      <

      p>Once we get over this ridiculous obsession with holding the primary (and voting in general) in a single day, I think the month of March ought to do well for everybody…  Let us hold each states primary over the entire month, with a running tally.

      <

      p>Personally, I’d like to limit all electioneering, campaigning and most especially fundraising to the year in which the election is held.  Policy doesn’t get done when politics is in play…

  5. Actually, I kind of like Iowa and NH as first primaries (or some other states if you wish to take the place of the “firsts”), due to the fact that they are little states; candidates can’t just blanket the airwaves – they actually have to go out and talk to people. I remember back in ’80 friends traveling over to NH for a weekend and meeting ALL of the candidates in person.  Try that when this first blitz consists of insane flying all over the country rather than folks trying to take the measure of a person face to face.

    <

    p>This whole rush to the front of the line is self-defeating.  What you would have is complete rule by money (even if the candidate in question turned out to be the Wizard of Oz).  Maybe we should just scrap the whole primary thing and go back to the good old days of the smoke-filled (well, maybe no smoke anymore) back rooms at the convention.

    <

    p>In reality, you could have the nominee wrapped up by the end of February.  What exactly is going to happen between then and the conventions in August?  I know most folks on this board are politically engaged, but for the most part the remaining primaries after the March Super Tuesday would be ignored by the general populace (barring the nominee caught in some compromising position with a goat).  And we can’t even emphasize the insignificance of the conventions in this scenario.  Ron Popeil’s infomercials will have higher ratings.

    <

    p>And let’s hear no more talk about a National Primary.  Do we then have to set up a series of “pre primary” straw vote primaries so people can figure out who to vote for in the regular primary?

    • Not sure how that happened (3 posts in a row).  Please delete something here if you could (and BTW, is there any capability to edit your own post after it’s gone up?)

      • …is there any capability to edit your own post after it’s gone up?

        <

        p>There’s an ‘Enhanced’ BMG membership which allows you several great upgrades. For an extra $29.99 per month, you can:

        <

        p>1.Edit your posts, even after they appear live.
        2.Edit other BMG member posts, even after they appear live.
        3.Rate other BMG member posts multiple times, preferably after    
         you’ve edited them.
        4.Send increasingly intense electrical shocks ( keystroke:
         Ctrl/FU )to BMG members who annoy you.  

        <

        p>IMHO, it’s a bargain!

          • Bandwidth is cheap–at least for the user.  Storage may be, too, but the proprietors are paying for it at their end.

            <

            p>BTW, I’ve seen this kind of replication on message boards, but not on weblogs.  And I’m mentioned that adding another message to apologize for the error merely adds to the bandwidth issue for those who are still on dial-up.

          • …Ginzu knives are only US$19.95 for a set.  Not nearly enough for mojo’s monthly subscription price for a BMG Godzilla-Pac 😉 /tic

  6. (a) that jumping into the race to be first would give Massachusetts voters “more clout”? What do you think would happen if we moved our primary to, say, December 31? Whatever scenario you imagine, I doubt it.

    <

    p>(b) that giving Bay State voters “more clout” would be a good thing? Sure it would be fun, but better for the country? The party? How? (Better for BMG I’ll grant you; see “fun.”)

    <

    p>This may surprise you, but Massachusetts voters are not a whole lot different from those in NH.

    <

    p>Oh, and drowning Massachusetts’s primary in the ocean of Sooper Dooper Tuesday only destroys the little chance that our primary might become decisive on its lonesome.

    <

    p>If we are going to talk reforms, I would propose requiring all early primary states, which I would define as any primary before June 1, to elect delegates proportionately rather than winner-take-all. That way there could at least be a delegate race based on votes cast that would parallel the “frontrunner race” that we have now.

    • This may surprise you, but Massachusetts voters are not a whole lot different from those in NH.

      <

      p>Hogwash.  Consider the following questions relative to MA counterparts…

      <

      p>What percent of people in New Hampshire rely on mass transit?
      What percent of people in New Hampshire are black?  Hispanic?
      What percent of people in New Hampshire live in areas with high murder rates?
      What percent of people in New Hampshire are required by law to buy health insurance?
      What percent of people in New Hampshire own guns?

      <

      p>I went ahead and answered some of ’em:
      * mass transit: almost none in NH vs. over 1,000,000 people each day in Massachusetts [over 16%].
      * black: 1.0% in NH, 6.9% in MA. Hispanic: 2.2% in NH, 7.9% in MA.  But another way: 94.1% white in NH, 80.3% in MA.
      * health insurance: none? in NH vs. the majority of citizens in MA.
      * gun ownership: according to this survey [which has biases to be sure], 30% in NH, 12.5% in MA.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>Now, that’s people, not voters.  This blurs the lines, since it may be that blacks or mass transit riders or gun owners or whomever are more or less frequent voters than other groups.  It’s also true that western Mass, North & South Shore, and even down Cape can look a lot like New Hampshire.  But, Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Quincy, Brookline, Medford, Revere, Malden, Watertown, Winthrop, etc. do not… and those places have loads of people.

      <

      p>To recap: New Hampshire is lily white, likes guns, is suburban and rural, and drives virtually everywhere.  Massachusetts is far more diverse in skin color and religion, doesn’t like guns, is urban [by population distn],  and uses cars, buses, subways, streetcars, commuter rail, walking, and bicycling to get to work, school, or shopping.  They don’t look much the same from my perspective.

      • You might have added that Mass. voters have a constitutional right to marry that NH voters do not.

        <

        p>So I cheerfully retract that inflammatory statement. (But I stand by all the others.)

        • You might have added that Mass. voters have a constitutional right to marry

          <

          p>Let’s get something–er–straight.  In MA, same sex couples have the right not to be discriminated against  Unless I am misreading the MA state constitution (feel free to correct me if I err), they do not have the constitutional right to marry, any more than an opposite sex couple has a constitutional right to marry.

          <

          p>That last was the crux of the SJC’s decision in Goodridge  The SJC could have declared the entire chapter of the judicial code into turmoil by declaring that it was unconstitutional.  The SJC chose a different remedy, since such a remedy would place the status of all of MA’s resident’s marriages into doubt.  That is what is often lost on many people.

      • And then there is Iowa and South Carolina to round out the “influence” parade.
        I would be happy with a single industialized state among the early primaries; It doesnt have to be Mass, it could just as well be Michigan or New York or California but it seems obvious to me that in the group of (IOWA, NH & SC) our interests are not demonstrated along with MOST Americans.

      • between MA and NH, and your point is well taken, the trend in NH is that it is becoming more like MA.

        <

        p>Certainly by density of population centers alone, the differences are what you would expect, but NH is trending Blue.

        <

        p>Couple of observation from that article:

        <

        p>

        But New Hampshire has become a very different place in the past decade, its demographics and politics transformed. The caricature of uniformly staunch Granite State conservatism is badly out of date, and that is shaping the way candidates campaign here too.
        ……………….
        In the next five to 10 years, the state will become more Democratic, thanks to an influx of people moving here for work, school and retirement, said Andrew Smith, a political scientist and pollster at the University of New Hampshire.

      • health insurance: none? in NH vs. the majority of citizens in MA

        <

        p>Citation, please?  Unless things have changed, a relatively large percentage of the residents of southern NH actually work in MA and would probably get health insurance from their MA employers.  There may be no mandate for health isnurance in NH, but that doesn’t mean that some significant percentage of them are (currently) provided with insurance.

        <

        p>Query.  Is It’s also true that western Mass, North & South Shore, and even down Cape can look a lot like New Hampshire. really true?  It strikes me that voters divide more along tribal lines than along racial lines, although they are related, and much of MA’s north shore appears to be more of Irish Catholic descent (Cape, too, maybe, at least by now).  What is NH’s breakdown?

        <

        p>BTW, regarding guns, I would love to have my father’s 1960s era reproduction of a civil war era musket.  Along with the paraphernalia required to mould the 58 caliber bullets.  But I guess I would need a gun rack that fits into the rear window of a 2000 vintage Camry to show it off.  Only slightly tongue in cheek.

    • Mass GOP voted to do away with winner-take-all delegate count, thinking that if there was no clear winner Feb. 5, we’d see some candidates in person.  Any candidate with at least 15% of the popular vote is guaranteed a delegate.

      <

      p>Now – we’re competing with super states like CA, and our changes will get lost in the shuffle.

      <

      p>I see our race as more competitive than yours – has Hillary been measured for her tiara and sash yet, or are you doing away with the swimsuit competition?

      <

      p>And about the conventions – THANKS, Democrats!  The party which does NOT hold the White House gets to schedule its convention first, and you picked the end of August, pushing the GOP convention into Labor Day weekend, the last possible legal day.  (If we lose the White House, we’ll be sure to return the favor – >:~[ ).

      <

      p>Consequently, while Madame will be trapising about all summer campaigning as front runner (I don’t think Obama has the moolah to hold on), we may have a brokered convention and no nominee until September – even though all the delegates were voted in F-rickin-ebuary!

      • <

        p>…the answer to which I do not know.  Is there something in the MA General Laws that requires a political party to hold a primary in which all of the “viable” (a term I use loosely) candidates to be allowed on the primary ballot?  Or can the party hold a convention (as was done by the Dems in the last gubernatorial election) and allow only persons with a certain minimum percentage of delegates at the party convention to appear on the ballot?

        <

        p>If the latter is the case (it is apparently not in CA), it strikes me that the MA state party could effect some control over the primary process.  Moreover, it would, of course, not preclude an “insurgent” (if you will) to mount a write-in or sticker campaign, but they are usually fruitless.

        • Political parties have a great deal of freedom over who gets on the ballot for primaries — that’s why the conditions vary so widely.  For example, Colbert’s SC candidacy was clearly more viable than Gravel’s, in terms of money or popularity, but was shut down by the two parties.  Same in Massachusetts — final decision on ballot access rests with the party, not the state.

            • His staff called the GOP, and got a sneering dismissal.  The Dems played along with the farce for a coupla days until the Exec Committee vote…the Republicans wouldn’t even give him the nomination paperwork.

      • is that there is probably nothing that the Commonwealth, or its political parties acting separately or in concert, that would put us in the political spotlight.

        <

        p>The best laid plans and all that.

        <

        p>I wouldn’t bet against Clinton at this point, but it is far from a done deal. Democrats are far less orderly about things like that than you Republicans.

      • about the conventions – THANKS, Democrats!  The party which does NOT hold the White House gets to schedule its convention first, and you picked the end of August, pushing the GOP convention into Labor Day weekend, the last possible legal day.  

        <

        p>Sorry we’re not trying to stretch our $75 million over an extra month as we did in 2004.  Looks like you’ll have to earn a win this time around, rather than winning it by default after the Dems screw it up for themselves…

        <

        p>As for a brokered convention, experience shows that Republican primary voters like to talk about their various options in fall, but come January and beyond, they happily herd in the direction indicated by the money men of the party.

        <

        p>Meanwhile, Hillary is scoring a whopping 40% of the vote in her best polls, which isn’t a majority to anyone who can do math.

  7. This is off-topic, but wanted to find a way to let you know that BMG code was updated last night, and it introduced a major bug: apparently no one (including me) can put up new posts.  I trust this problem will be resolved soon.  Apparently, comments still work.

    <

    p>Sorry about this.

Archives