Which is why I need to look at it, too - on the one hand I do like the pure federalism and states' rights aspect of allowing the decision behind a party nomination being independent of the national government and on a state-by-state basis.
On the other hand (and this is only my second primary as the first one I voted was absentee and my second one was a caucus, so I'm still learning how it works), there seems to be a great deal of disenfranchisement - both in how much early states' votes are weighed (so that, in most years those that vote later have a much narrower field, if at all), and with regard to the states being penalized, so that it seems to be that if this really is the peoples' choice for the party nominee, then it really ought to be more standardized.
One thing I do have no objection to (although apparently those registered as independent disagree) is ensuring that only those registered with a party can vote - since it is the "Democratic" and the "Republican" nominee, then it should be people who declare themselves as such who have a voice . . .
I'm not sure how to fix the rest though - both because I think it would mean telling the parties they're really not as powerful as they'd like to believe, and because to some extent there's a states' rights issue involved and federal interference could be limited.
the reason there are no constitutional or legal problems with stripping a state of its delegates to a party convention is because primaries are not functions of government. the fact that the party has set up a selection system strongly resembling the federal approach notwithstanding, the democratic party's nominee for president is whoever the democratic party says it is.
striping florida and michigan of delegates was a pretty drastic move, but as i understand it, the state parties were given the option of moving their primary back to their previously scheduled dates and refused.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: None of the Above/All of the Above
On the other hand (and this is only my second primary as the first one I voted was absentee and my second one was a caucus, so I'm still learning how it works), there seems to be a great deal of disenfranchisement - both in how much early states' votes are weighed (so that, in most years those that vote later have a much narrower field, if at all), and with regard to the states being penalized, so that it seems to be that if this really is the peoples' choice for the party nominee, then it really ought to be more standardized.
One thing I do have no objection to (although apparently those registered as independent disagree) is ensuring that only those registered with a party can vote - since it is the "Democratic" and the "Republican" nominee, then it should be people who declare themselves as such who have a voice . . .
I'm not sure how to fix the rest though - both because I think it would mean telling the parties they're really not as powerful as they'd like to believe, and because to some extent there's a states' rights issue involved and federal interference could be limited.
Re: None of the Above/All of the Above
striping florida and michigan of delegates was a pretty drastic move, but as i understand it, the state parties were given the option of moving their primary back to their previously scheduled dates and refused.