Maine considers return to presidential primary

Tiso0770

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
519
12:20 PM, May. 9, 2012

PORTLAND, Maine (WTW) — Maine's tumultuous GOP presidential caucuses that sparked a revolution at the state party convention by angry Ron Paul supporters could provide extra support for a bill that would put Maine on a path to return to presidential primaries in four years.

Senate President Kevin Raye introduced the bill to restore presidential primaries a month after the GOP's handling of its caucuses generated widespread criticism.

Supporters say primaries encourage greater voter participation compared to caucuses, which are often daylong affairs that tend to appeal to party activists.

"Mainers, on the whole, regardless of the party, are more apt to go to a voting booth than participate in a caucus, which is time consuming and confusing," said Josh Tardy, a former GOP House leader. "Both parties want to appeal to the regular ordinary voter, not just the activists."

Opponents tend to focus on the cost, which could reach more than $1 million, compared to caucuses, which are funded through the parties.

Raye's proposal, which has been scaled back, would require the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee to draft a proposal to restore primaries to be considered by lawmakers next year.

It awaits final action next week in the Senate.

The nonbinding Republican caucuses last winter were a messy affair with Chairman Charlie Webster on Feb. 11 declaring Mitt Romney to be the winner under the state committee's rules even though a snowstorm delayed votes in Washington County. Supporters of Paul, the Texas congressman and a presidential longshot, cried foul.

The GOP later acknowledged that numbers from some communities were inadvertently omitted and that the tallies were flip-flopped in Portland, Maine's largest city.

Romney remained the winner even after figures were adjusted and Washington County held its vote, but angry Paul supporters had the last word when they took over the party's convention last weekend and stripped Romney of most of his delegates. Paul's supporters installed their own convention chairman and won 21 out of 24 delegates to the national convention.

Even if Raye's bill passes, it wouldn't address what happened at the convention. Parties, after all, make up their own rules for electing delegates to the national convention.

The last presidential primaries were in 2000 — won by future Republican President George W. Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat — and the state paid more than $50,000 to print the ballots, said Megan Sanborn of the secretary of state's office. A survey by the Maine Municipal Association suggested an expense of about $1 million for municipalities.

For Raye, he said it's worth the money to boost participation and to ensure an accurate vote count on something as important as a presidential preference poll. After all, the state already holds a separate primary in June for congressional, gubernatorial and legislative races, he said.

Neither of the major parties is taking a position on Raye's proposal.

Webster, for his part, said he has no interest in repeating the caucus problems that drew unwanted national attention. If he had a do-over, he said, he would recommend against holding a nonbinding vote that in the end had no bearing on apportionment of delegates.

"When it comes to the caucuses, one candidate got a few more votes (than the other) in this beauty contest poll and it didn't mean anything," he said.

hxxp://www.thenorthwestern.com/usatoday/article/39236361?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
 
Yeah, they've been pushing this since the shananigans started in Maine, as if it's somehow a bad thing that caucuses are able to expose their corruption, and so we need to go to completely hidden vote machines (and no I'm not a "flipper" persay, I just don't trust leaving our democracy to hidden vote tabulators and trust no one is going to screw with them like they do caucuses. Felt that way for years.).
 
"Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths."

— James Madison
 
You got that right, I never did believe in the Primary system were they can hide behind a corrupt process. if only all states was a caucus system, then the average joe may have a chance.
 
This is why Caucus states are so great - they actually encourage discussion with your neighbours and can serve as a conduit towards changing minds as many people live in the mainstream media bubble.
 
This is why Caucus states are so great - they actually encourage discussion with your neighbours and can serve as a conduit towards changing minds as many people live in the mainstream media bubble.

True, it is about nominating a candidate that fits the party. Not about inactive party members voting 50% for the medias favorite.
 
True, it is about nominating a candidate that fits the party. Not about inactive party members voting 50% for the medias favorite.

There are a lot of people who aren't "inactive" who would be effectively cut out by a caucus system- regular folks with jobs and families who DO pay attention to politics, but don't have time to be be activists. While the caucus system is helping the candidate you prefer this year (Ron Paul), I'm not sure it's a great system, as it tends to exclude all but the most hard core supporters. There are plenty of people who do pay attention to politics, but who aren't going to spend the time to learn about and participate in a caucus. I'm not sure that it's a good thing to have the candidate chosen only by activists and those with the time/schedule that will allow them to "caucus."
 
There are a lot of people who aren't "inactive" who would be effectively cut out by a caucus system- regular folks with jobs and families who DO pay attention to politics, but don't have time to be be activists. While the caucus system is helping the candidate you prefer this year (Ron Paul), I'm not sure it's a great system, as it tends to exclude all but the most hard core supporters. There are plenty of people who do pay attention to politics, but who aren't going to spend the time to learn about and participate in a caucus. I'm not sure that it's a good thing to have the candidate chosen only by activists and those with the time/schedule that will allow them to "caucus."

As bat-shit confusing as the Louisiana system is with both a primary and a caucus system, I kind of like it. You get the best of both worlds. We have 46 RNC delegates. Potentially 20 can be bound via the primary vote. Another 18 get elected through a multi-tiered caucus system. Finally 8 are either selected by or are the establishment. So that last bit could be changed and it'd be better :D

Also, the way our primary works is that if not enough candidates get over the threshold then some of those 20 potentially bound delegate slots remain unbound. For instance this year 5 of the 20 remained unbound because neither Paul nor Gingrich got enough to win any but at the same time neither Santorum nor Romney got enough votes to earn them.
 
Last edited:
Maine considers return to presidential primary

Fine by me. In another 4 years, we will be the popular vote. Our growth is expotential and there is nothing they can do about it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the Republicans up here are trying hard and doing real well with doing their best impression of a Democrat.

"This is so unfair. OMG. SO UNDEMOCRATIC! DEMOCRACY!" -_-
 
Sounds like the NFL changing Overtime rules because the Saints beat the Vikes in the NFC title game....

sore losers... they could not win, and they even cheated....
 
Ding ding. Well....as long as we didn't piss to many people off. Rand isn't Ron, but he'll do much better with the normal GOP folks.

Fine by me. In another 4 years, we will be the popular vote. Our growth is expotential and there is nothing they can do about it.
 
<i>"This is why Caucus states are so great - they actually encourage discussion with your neighbours and can serve as a conduit towards changing minds as many people live in the mainstream media bubble."</i>

That's why I like Minnesota's politics compared to Wisconsin's, because you are actually participating in the process instead voting based on who produces the most TV commercials.

I think one of the reasons the recalls took place was due to this fact. You gather signatures, you feel like you're doing something.
 
Jiga say what? Its the Saints that cheated and won. The rule change is/was inmaterial of the outcome of that game. Sorry big time Viking fan. One can only choke so many times before it leads to heavy drinking on Sundays :)

Sounds like the NFL changing Overtime rules because the Saints beat the Vikes in the NFC title game....

sore losers... they could not win, and they even cheated....
 
"Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths."

— James Madison

Hear hear.
 
They're trying this in Nevada too. I tried to block them but they closed debate on the resolutions and platform which indicate party support for a primary, not a caucus. This was completely inconsistent with the spirit of the rest of the platform. Caucuses are the choice of an informed Republic, while primaries support blind democracy. I won my caucus precinct for Dr. Paul through my arguments.

Now sure, the platform is nonbinding but it sets a negative tone. If Nevada had been a primary, none of us would have made it to the convention and Dr. Paul would have suffered the same fate as Sharron Angle vs. Harry Reid at the voting booths. I would like to know who it was who added that to the proposed state platform.
 
Last edited:
Ya this bad new bears for 2016.

We would have had a lot of free states for Rand.
 
There are a lot of people who aren't "inactive" who would be effectively cut out by a caucus system- regular folks with jobs and families who DO pay attention to politics, but don't have time to be be activists. While the caucus system is helping the candidate you prefer this year (Ron Paul), I'm not sure it's a great system, as it tends to exclude all but the most hard core supporters. There are plenty of people who do pay attention to politics, but who aren't going to spend the time to learn about and participate in a caucus. I'm not sure that it's a good thing to have the candidate chosen only by activists and those with the time/schedule that will allow them to "caucus."

I am in favor of caucus. If there were caucuses in NY it would have been awesome. I think you should research "The myth of the rational voter". The incentives involved in voting on a state wide scale are extremely perverse. It the interest of voters to stay uninformed due to the minute influence you wield and the tiny time investment.

A caucus on the other hand rewards invested and knowledgeable people. The success in the caucuses for Ron are testament to it.
 
Back
Top