Resolved:
- Political parties should nominate candidates for the presidency through a national primary
**Please post your three (3) questions for the Pro, Con, or both sides of the debate, as well as indicating a question or two you would like to see asked in class (through submitting a "reply". Make sure you read through the questions posted before you, as repeated questions will not count! Questions should be submitted by 9/29 at noon (12pm).
1- Do you think state contests should winnow the field before we give everyone an equal vote in a national primary?
ReplyDelete2- If a National Primary works, what do you think that explain what happened in 2008 election when 24 states held a primary? The situation was bad for overwhelmed campaigns, party leaders, and election officials.
3. Presidential primaries do not occur in a vacuum but are often held in conjunction with state and local elections. Why is it not supportable, if moving the presidential primary can have downstream consequences?
Question 1 is really interesting - what would happen if everyone could vote for every single person who entered the primary??
Delete1. One of the beneficial effects of the national primary is that it would allow candidates to be more focused on the national issues rather than the local issues. Do you think that the states would even want that?
ReplyDelete2. The presidential nominating process for the parties is outside the Constitution. Do you think that it would be possible to establish a national primary through legitimate means?
3. A national primary was described as a simple and clear system. Do you agree with the expression that “the genius of the American political system lies in its complexity?”
I like question 3!
Delete1. Nelson argues that a national primary would increase voter turnout because every vote would count. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
ReplyDelete2. If America was to switch to a national primary, would it be more beneficial to have one national primary or 51 state primaries held on the same day?
3. Would having a national primary limit the potential candidates to run for office because candidates would have to start a national campaign from the beginning?
1. Would a national primary increase or decrease fighting within each party?
ReplyDelete2. If the primary system stayed the same, but there was rotation among the states who got to hold the first primary/caucus, how would this affect the nomination process?
3. How would a national primary affect the campaign of the incumbent president? Would it be more likely that he face challengers from his own party?
I like question #2
DeleteNumber 1 is definitely interesting!
DeleteI like question 2!
DeleteI like question 1!
DeleteWould a national primary give advantage to the better-known and funded candidates due to possible increase in financing the expensive advertising and large campaign operation?
ReplyDeleteWould having a national primary limit the political parties control over the selection of their eventual nominee?
If we did have a national primary would voters in smaller states be ignored?
I like question 3 a lot!
DeleteHow would a national primary impact campaign spending?
ReplyDeleteHow would a national primary impact the campaigns themselves? Would this allow more or less time for candidates to spread their name and purpose throughout the country?
Would a national primary benefit the candidates or the voters more? Wouldn't it allow for an chance for people to form their own opinions before "winners" are announced in early primaries/caucuses that we currently have?
I like question 3!
DeleteQuestion 3!
DeleteWhat do you think the world would be like today if our country still used the congressional caucus system?
ReplyDeleteDo you think the attention (media coverage and campaign spending) received by the first states to hold their primaries gives them an unfair advantage? Do the states who hold their primaries last have to deal with the candidates setting aside or forgetting their local issues?
Do you think the national primary unfairly eliminates the smaller, less known candidates from presidential nomination?
I like #3
DeleteHow would smaller and larger states be effected if we were to use a national primary system?
ReplyDeleteWould there be more or less competition within parties were there a national primary? Would we potentially have more or less candidates per party?
What do you think the citizens response would be should we adopt a national primary system?
Question 2 is really good one to consider!
Delete1. How much do you think national primary would affects the competitions amongst candidates?
ReplyDelete2. With the way system is set up, campaign tends to matter a lot. So, if the system change to national primary, do you think it would affects the importance of campaigning?
3. Small states like Iowa and New Hampshire have embraced the current system because they make an impact during caucus and primary season. If the system change to national primary, do you think these small states will continue to matter as much?
##: I like question 3
1. State primaries allow voters to see the candidates in multiple different settings allowing them to get to know them better. Would a national primary not allow voters to get to know the candidates better?
ReplyDelete2. Do you think there would be a larger voter to candidate disconnect? Would there be a decrease in their travel to certain parts of the country, effecting campaigning strategies?
3. A national primary would make candidates focus on more national issues, would this allow for the elected president to better serve the people and allow him to stay more true to his promises?
Question 3!
Delete3
Delete1. With a major importance of name recognition in our system or a national primary system would there really be a difference in who is chosen?
ReplyDelete2. Would voter apathy play a larger role in a national primary system?
3. With a national primary system do you think voter fatigue would play a part? Potentially wouldn't more voters get tired of the election sooner?
1. Would a national primary produce more ideologically diverse candidates, or would it drive all candidates to the run of the mill moderate view typical of national elections in order to appease the nation at large?
ReplyDelete2. Would the use of a national primary system increase voter turnout or would it rather discourage voters in small states?
3. If the national primary system were adopted, would the parties essentially "frontload" their own primary to decrease competition between their candidates?
1. What are the benefits of a national primary compared to what we have in place now?
ReplyDelete2. Do you see an election cycle where primaries are no longer important?
3. Would adopting a national primary put more power into the hands of the party when referring to who runs the campaign of president candidates?
1. Do you think things would be any different if the earliest primaries were not held in New Hampshire and Iowa, but rather in larger states such as Florida or California?
ReplyDelete2. Do you agree that "simplicity and clarity" are indeed the most important things we ought to be considering when designing a new presidential nomination process?
3. If there was a way to eradicate the problem of front loading, would a national primary still be seen as such a viable option?
1. Having a national primary could essentially increase voter turnout simply because every individuals vote would essentially count. Do you agree?
ReplyDelete2. Do you see a national primary increasing the gap between democrats and republicans or decreasing it?
3. Small states are somewhat ignored already, would having a national primary help this issue?
1. To what extent would having a national primary be an advantage for the United States?
ReplyDelete2. Is it undemocratic to not have a national primary for political parties to nominate their presidential candidates?
3. Is having a a national primary for political parties to nominate their presidential candidates the best option or is there an alternate feasible option?
1. What time of the year would be the best time to hold a national primary?
ReplyDelete2. Which political party would benefit more from a national primary?
3. Would a national primary be beneficial or hurtful to third parties?
3
Delete1. In a system where it has already been established that states want to have as much say in the primary elections, how would you propose to get every state to participate in a national primary? Would imposing this option be an intrusion by, for example, the national government.
ReplyDelete2. The question has been raised that national primaries would eliminate those who did not have boat loads of money to run on. Would the repeal of limits to personal contributions help solve this problem or bring up more.
3. Since our nation is based on a check and balance system, could a similar check and balances process be found for primary elections? Does this make the situation to complicated or would that potentially be better since some argue against simplicity?
1. What alternatives to primaries are there?
ReplyDelete2. How could national primaries be run differently?
3. How do these national primaries affect funding for campaigns among the candidates competing?
1. Would having a National Primary positively change or negatively effect the more important processes involved during the American Election?
ReplyDelete2. Would more Nationally Recognized figures emerge from the National Primary as opposed to their less known counterparts?
3. How would states react to the loss of political power resulting from the National Primary?