2004 Presidential Primary Meaningless? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 10-31-2003, 08:09 AM

Quote:

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Gov. Gary Locke (search) on Thursday called a special session of the Legislature for Dec. 5 to cancel next year's presidential primary, saying the state shouldn't waste money on an election that has no real meaning.

The primary had been set for March 2. But Democrats are using precinct caucuses in February to allocate national convention delegates, making the later Democratic primary moot. And President Bush has no serious challenger for the Republican nomination.

"Canceling the nonbinding presidential primary will save the taxpayers more than $7 million," the governor said. "It makes no sense to spend taxpayer money on an election that serves no practical purpose."

Canceling the primary was first proposed by state Sen. Jim Kastama, a Democrat, and eventually other legislators took up the cause. Local officials also called for the cancellation.

GOP Secretary of State Sam Reed, a staunch backer of the primary, reluctantly went along, telling The Associated Press "it can't pass the straight-face test" to run a meaningless election during a recession.

Kastama hailed Locke's decision to call the special session, and predicted a strong, perhaps even unanimous, vote in both houses.

"It's one of those things that just makes sense," he said.

Superbelt · 10-31-2003, 08:46 AM

In a lot of states, yeah. The decision is already made before they get to you. I live in PA and the nominee will already have been picked before they get to us.

I think instead Washington, (and pa) should move their primary date up so that we actually have a say in the election.

alkaloid · 10-31-2003, 12:57 PM

Maybe New Hampshire or Iowa gets net gain from primary campaigns. I think it's reasonable for Washington to cancel its primary. But if every state cancelled it, it would be weird.

samremy · 10-31-2003, 09:38 PM

What would be wrong with having a National Primary Election Day? Say the third Monday in February, President's Day. I believe it would even the playing field for the candidates*, but it would also give every vote the same importance.

(*) Campaign finance reform would be necessary so that the candidates can campaign in each state equally. That way voters might be influenced more by the substance of a candidate rather than by the amount of advertising the candidate can afford.

10-31-2003, 09:38 PM	#4 (permalink)
samremy ‘Crotch Level’ Intellectual Location: Southwest, USA	What would be wrong with having a National Primary Election Day? Say the third Monday in February, President's Day. I believe it would even the playing field for the candidates, but it would also give every vote the same importance. () Campaign finance reform would be necessary so that the candidates can campaign in each state equally. That way voters might be influenced more by the substance of a candidate rather than by the amount of advertising the candidate can afford. __________________ "...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government .. " -- The US Declaration of Independence Last edited by samremy; 10-31-2003 at 09:43 PM..

10-31-2003, 08:46 AM	#2 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	In a lot of states, yeah. The decision is already made before they get to you. I live in PA and the nominee will already have been picked before they get to us. I think instead Washington, (and pa) should move their primary date up so that we actually have a say in the election.

10-31-2003, 12:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
alkaloid Dead Inside Location: East Coast, USA	Maybe New Hampshire or Iowa gets net gain from primary campaigns. I think it's reasonable for Washington to cancel its primary. But if every state cancelled it, it would be weird.