Someone said that they wanted the entire primary season to be condensed into a national one-day primary vote, just like a general election.
No fifty state strategies, no building of local ground games, no rolling economic stimulus road show, no sequential get-out-the-vote efforts, none of that. No getting to know the candidates over time and building up their strengths while testing their weaknesses. Just go to the polls and vote on the nominee, boom you have a nominee. The one with the biggest name recognition and national press wins.
Of all the things to ask for after this primary season, how could anyone think that it would be better if we got the primary over in one day?
The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.
President-Elect "That One"
and it's the inevitable endpoint of the Clintons' anti-caucus argument.
The Democratic primary process ISN'T an election. It's a series of contests to select a candidate. As a part of that, contests are held that gauge broad support on the level of just voting (primaries) as well as broad support of more commitment and effort (caucuses). It measures both base (closed contests) and wider appeal (open and semi-open contests).
It measures both the ability to campaign widely at the same time (SuperTuesday) and the ability to focus on states (the 6-month season).
And then we use delegates to allocate, because if we did it by popular vote, every state would want an open primary, so as to not reduce their importance.
The Clinton Camp has been pushing the idea that this is an election, and it's all about the popular vote total. Of course, if it were so -- we'd have a consistent method, a consistent voter screen, and a single date.
What a great explanation. May I use your points in discussions I may get into to about the popular vote?
Absolutely. I wrote a diary on Kos a bit back with the same premise... let's see...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4 /1/102415/8987/1000/488187
There it is. It's a little more detailed, but covers the same ground.
