Democrats Continue To Miss The Point

I'm really getting tired of these winner take-all firehouse primaries with big candidate fields.  "Firehouse primary" is really just a fancy term for an un-assembled caucus- when an assembled caucus (i.e. a convention) can be much more balanced in selecting a party nominee.  Candidates only have to appeal to a narrow window of people to win a firehouse primary.  Whatever happened to a convention where someone needed to get 50% of the vote to win?  Isn't the best nominee the person who can bring the largest coalition behind their candidacies?

I understand the advantages of a real primary versus a convention, but why go for an un-assembled caucus over an assembled caucus?  This kind of thinking is so weird to me.

 

Comments

[Not E. Blackburn Moore]

Yes, it is wrong for a candidate to win a nomination with 25% of the vote in a firehouse primary, but who wants to sit for hours in a meeting with a handful of clowns wrangling over rules and such?

Why not the best of both worlds? Use instant runoff voting, where voters can rank their choices in order. The voters can cast their votes quickly and leave, but the method will facilitate the selection of the most broadly acceptable candidate.

[Not Larry Sabato]

I like that solution better than the current process for sure. The advantage to a convention would be having the candidates get to speak and persuade people- while the advantage to your system would be quick voting. Both are far better than this kind of sideshow where someone wins with 25%.

[cvllelaw]

We used instant runoff voting in the Charlottesville Democratic Party the last two years, and although we still have to work through a few details, it worked quite well. There are software programs out there that handle the vote counting easily, or you can do it by hand and take hours. We had seven candidates for three City Council spots. It would have taken probably four ballots at a Convention. At the end of the day we had had the functional equivalent of a long convention, and people only needed to spend 15 minutes to vote. The polls were open for 10 hours, and over 2,500 people participated.

I wasn't really a fan at first, but I am now.

[Jimmy]

Jungle. Primary. Louisiana-style. It's the only way to ensure that the winner of an election gets 50+%
Everyone runs on the same ballot and 50-plus one locks it up.

[Steve Vaughan]

I agree that a real primary is always the better way to go but if the anwer is "no" on that, a convention is much better than a firehouse primary,

[Still Keeping the Big Boys Honest]

A real primary can be won by a pluarlity. After the 1969 Democratic Primary runoff, it was changed to permit a plurality.

[Still Keeping the Big Boys Honest]

Hey I just remembered...in the 2009 Democratic Primary T. McAuliff got just over 25% for second place. Deeds won with a plurality of 49.7%. An "official" primary is no guarantee of a majority.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Who said otherwise?

[brimur]

Real runoffs are a lot more fun.

[nova]

Not disagreeing, but in practice, it hasn't made a difference recently. The last time Arlington had a firehouse primary in '08, the two winning candidates (it was vote-for-two) both garnered ~25% of the vote (which is like 50% for vote-for-one).

[DemRulz]

I agree that a real primary is generally the way to go, but sometimes, e.g., when there is a special election, a school board endorsement, or an election for state convention delegates, you need a caucus. We amended the DPVA Party Plan to allow unassembled caucuses after the 1984 Arlington Presidential caucus which involved several thousand people, lines around the building, and many hours. An unassembled caucus can be spread out over a longer period of time, allows for in person absentee voting (thursday night before the caucus), and resembles a primary in that voters can vote and leave (instead of spending hours in a meeting)- so it provides for greater participation. The plurality winner issue is the same as in a real primary. I haven't been involved with the instant runoff voting process, but it's certainly worth investigating.