No Presidential Primary in 12 states? Good or bad?

[Johnnybags]

Navigate:

* POLITICO
* Ben Smith
* Not enough money for a 2012 primary?

Main Content
Not enough money for a 2012 primary? - Ben Smith: Not enough money for a 2012 primary?
February 18, 2011
Categories:

* 2012

Not enough money for a 2012 primary?

A handful of states, including Massachusetts, are considering abolishing their presidential primaries -- mainly because there's not enough money in the budget:

Secretary of State Bill Galvin says there’s not enough money to run a primary in March 2012, according to Gov. Deval Patrick’s budget for the next fiscal year.

“The number that was submitted by the governor despite the fact that he suggested, or his administration suggested, that it would be a 2 percent cut, in fact is a far more drastic cut. My budget will go down anyways for the coming fiscal year in the elections area because we have one fewer election in the upcoming fiscal year than we did in the last, but nevertheless, it’s a problem to run this March 6, 2012 event based upon the numbers they’ve submitted,” Galvin told WBZ.

The result of a state abolishing its presidential primary would likely be a state-party funded caucus system -- but those state parties could also choose a different nomination method

[erowe1]

The result of a state abolishing its presidential primary would likely be a state-party funded caucus system -- but those state parties could also choose a different nomination method

Note that last phrase. I suspect that they will choose whatever method they can control the best to make sure Ron Paul can't win.

From the perspective of what's best for the RP campaign, I see this as bad news. From the perspective of what's most ethical, I see it as good news. The political parties are private organizations. There's absolutely no way that states should be funding their inner-party elections like they do.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Which states?

[TCE]

Which states?

Mass. is the one mentioned, since that is Patrick's state. Since it is MA, it would be good since they'd nominate a bad Republican anyway, but it looks like they'll have the party bosses casting the votes, meaning Ron Paul already lost one state.

[wormyguy]

MA probably has the most statist primary voters in the nation. Any switches to caucuses (especially here) is a net benefit to RP.

[erowe1]

MA probably has the most statist primary voters in the nation. Any switches to caucuses (especially here) is a net benefit to RP.

What makes you so sure it would be caucuses, and not a convention, or something else?

[Austin]

Note that last phrase. I suspect that they will choose whatever method they can control the best to make sure Ron Paul can't win.

From the perspective of what's best for the RP campaign, I see this as bad news. From the perspective of what's most ethical, I see it as good news. The political parties are private organizations. There's absolutely no way that states should be funding their inner-party elections like they do.

I imagine it will be delegates or precinct committeemen that decide in those states....

If only we had listened to Ron and got involved in the Republican Party.

[specsaregood]

Note that last phrase. I suspect that they will choose whatever method they can control the best to make sure Ron Paul can't win.

From the perspective of what's best for the RP campaign, I see this as bad news. From the perspective of what's most ethical, I see it as good news. The political parties are private organizations. There's absolutely no way that states should be funding their inner-party elections like they do.

It is all going according to plan, it isn't like they have tried to hide it:



The Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS) a group created for the bicentennial and of which more than 1/3 of the directors were CFR members proposed drastic changes to the Constitution. These changes were outlined in the book: "Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System."
Here are some of the changes they proposed:
1. No longer allow Americans to vote for individual candidates. You can only vote for a party/slate of candidates. This includes eliminating Independent candidates.
2. Expand congress, The party who's nominee became president would be able to designate 1/6 of congress members and 1/3 of all Senators.
3. Lower the requirement for Senate ratification of treaties.
4. Extend Representatives terms' from 2 to 4 years.
5. Extend Senators terms' from 6 to 8 years.
6. Allow congressman to serve in the executive branch at the same time as holding their congressional seat.
From: "Shadows of Power", pg 200

[kahless]

No matter how hard the media and establishment Republicans try, Romney has no chance of being nominated. They are therefore taking this pre-emptive action to ensure Romney is nominated. So much for free and fair elections.

[tangent4ronpaul]

It is all going according to plan, it isn't like they have tried to hide it:

Did they provide a primary ref?

[libertybrewcity]

If they are caucuses, that is excellent news for us. Are chances would drastically increase. Anything else we might as well call it a day..

[brandon]

Governments shouldn't be paying for primary elections in the first place. If you think about it, using state funding for supporting political groups is really the epitome of corruption.

[wormyguy]

What makes you so sure it would be caucuses, and not a convention, or something else?

A convention would be even better for us, since we would have an even better chance of "winning" that (as in Utah and Maine last year).

[erowe1]

A convention would be even better for us, since we would have an even better chance of "winning" that (as in Utah and Maine last year).

That depends on if they're on their toes. If they want to control the outcome and they're not caught off guard, they can.

[wormyguy]

That depends on if they're on their toes. If they want to control the outcome and they're not caught off guard, they can.

Given the sheer ineptitude of the MAGOP (not even contesting a majority of state house seats last year, failing to pick up a single state house seat in the Republican wave year of 1994 when the incumbent Republican governor was winning with over 70% of the vote, carrying the city of Boston and a plurality of Democrats), I don't think they'd be able to control anything.

[robertwerden]

This is huge if true. I doubt however that the public will see this as anything other than tyrannical and a path to election stealing. I see this as a precipitation to a second civil war.

[erowe1]

Given the sheer ineptitude of the MAGOP (not even contesting a majority of state house seats last year, failing to pick up a single state house seat in the Republican wave year of 1994 when the incumbent Republican governor was winning with over 70% of the vote, carrying the city of Boston and a plurality of Democrats), I don't think they'd be able to control anything.

It's definitely worth preparing for. Any RP supporters in MA who aren't already dues-paying members of their county GOPs need to become ones ASAP.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

This is huge if true. I doubt however that the public will see this as anything other than tyrannical and a path to election stealing. I see this as a precipitation to a second civil war.


They might see it that way, but I suspect the populace in general would fall for whatever sugar coating it gets.

[robertwerden]

Only time will tell. Sugar on bullshit is sweet tasting, but still smells like shit

[juvanya]

I wonder if Christie is thinking of this. Id probably caucus if we had them.