How does the Democratic Nomination Process work?

[Goober]

I have a question about the Democratic Nomination process:

How are the order that the States hold their primaries/caucases in determined? I assume it is not random.

I ask this because (a) I do not know, and (b), the current process seems grossly unfair to the States who select their delegates at the end, when the Candidate is pretty much already known. The current process seems to ensure the the first States to hold their primaries seem to choose the Candidate, which seems unfair. Is this Nomination a typical one? Are some nominations closer? Is their like a Grand Committee that choses the order the States hold their Primaries?

Ohh . . . the questions.

And Clark is out, unfortunately . . .

 

[onejayhawk]

The position of the primaries on the calander is determined by the state legislatures. While it may appear unfair to those states late in the process, this is a recent trend. A century ago the later states had great status because there were often 3 or 4 candidates still in the hunt--before radio candidates often controlled whole regions of the country, but had difficulty outside their home base. Now the media brings us huge amounts of information on all the candidates and in depth, same day, coverage of every primary, rather than a summary in the Sunday newspaper, and little else.

This election cycle is about what has gone on for a couple of decades. The last time a really close race occured was 1976, I think, when sitting President Ford barely squeeked out a challange by Ronald Reagan. RR did better 4 years later. Again, that's the media coverage and the impact of each primary on the next. MO mentum.

J

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, I still believe that if all states were voting the same day, it would more fair. Well both parties do like they want to get their nominee, but I don't consider state should be only considered through their population but also their weight should also be about how much they are switching states or not.

After all, it's not that important for democrats to know who people wants in Michigan since they'll vote massively for the dems anyway. It's about the same with Colorado since they'll vote massively for republicans. Thus, switching states should have more weight in the primary nominations. To me. And, it's even more important that it occures the same day of course.

 

[Goober]

Ahh . . . ok, makes sense. So the State Legislatures choose when they want to have their primaries/caucases. I guess it varies from nomination to nomination on which States have the most say in the nomination process. And I now see the reason for the spread out primaries, rather then on the same day. The reason, I am fairly sure, is that this allows the party to build up momentum (or moomentum) for the election.

Kinda confusing to a Non-US person, since there ain't nothing comparable with this in Canada . . .

 

[sysyphus]

I have a related question, how is the winner decided? Is it based on who gets the most states or is it popular vote.. or something else?

 

[Goober]

No, it is delegates. In these primaries and causases, people are actually picking delegates that support one nominee or another. You need like 1,500 delegates, or the majority of delegates, to have enough support to become the official nominee for that party.

Now, I did get this info off cbc.ca/news, so it might be slightly tainted . . . and I assume the same process works for the GOP, as with the Democrats.

 

[Archer 007]

I think it's about 2100 delegates to get the nomination.

 

[The Yankee]

There are also about 800 "superdelegates."

These are delegates that are not tied down by the outcomes of primaries. These people are usually congressmen, other party officials, and so forth. They are free to vote for whomever they choose. In fact, one of Dennis Kucinich's few delegates is....Dennis Kucinich.

I believe the DNC requires a candidate to get at least 15% of a primary/caucus vote to get a share of the delegates.

A candidate with delegates can pledge their delegates to another candidate if they wish. Though...I'm not sure if that works with superdelegates.

 

[wilbill]

It's really up to the individual party to determine how its candidate is selected. There's no requirement that they even hold primaries - "third" parties often choose a candidate in a convention or, for the Greens, whoever looks the most like Ralph Nader.
The rules on division of delegates varies greatly from state to state. Most require some minimum percentage of the vote or, in some cases, that a candidate win in one congressinal district in order to receive any delagates. Some states used to have "popularity contest" primaries that didn't bind delegates to the winner and some used to have "winner take all" primaries. I'm not sure there are any of these left.
The Republican party has about half the number of delegates that the Dems do for some reason. Both parties allocate delegates to the states based upon how the state voted in the last presidential election (if the party's candidate won the state, it gets more delegates), how many congressional seats the party holds in the state, how many elected state officials are from the party, etc.

 

[Goober]

Huh, this primary stuff is truly fascinating (I know, I have been doing too much homework). So the States really has two elections in a way, an election to choose the Leader of the 2 major political parties, and the actual election. Interesting, very interesting . . .

 

[Pirate]

Originally posted by RealGoober
Huh, this primary stuff is truly fascinating (I know, I have been doing too much homework). So the States really has two elections in a way, an election to choose the Leader of the 2 major political parties, and the actual election. Interesting, very interesting . . .

You could say that. The primaries narrow down the field of possible candidates to the one that best reflects the views of the whole party. This selection process is also a way to identify the national issues of the political party and set their adgenda for the coming election. This year it's actually quite boring because only the democrats are selecting a candidate. It was really interesting 4 years ago when both the democrats and republicans were selecting their candidate at the same time!

 

[The Yankee]

Of course, some states also have different ramifications of who can vote in what primary. Say there is a Democratic primary. Some states will only allow registered Democrats to vote or take part in a caucus. Some others allow Democrats and independents vote. A couple of states let just anyone who's registered to vote vote, including Republicans. I believe there are also a few states that let a person register to vote or register to the party and take part in the primary/caucus the same day.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by The Yankee
I believe there are also a few states that let a person register to vote or register to the party and take part in the primary/caucus the same day.

In texas, there is no designation of a voters party (*exception below) until the day of the primary. You pick which primary you want to vote in, your registration card is stamped with that party, and you will not be able to vote in later runoff primary elections for other parties or atted other party's precinct conventions. Each 2 year primary election cycle you get a near card.

*if you have filed as a candidate in a partiy's primary, you are not allowed to vote in another party's primary.

 

[The Yankee]

I knew there were exceptions, but I didn't want to run the risk of getting them wrong. I believe North Dakota's caucuses for the Democrats had guidelines that were different than the usual two or three systems used by most states.

What I don't get is the reasoning behind letting other parties vote in one's primaries or let voters register or switch registration the day of the primary/caucus.

 

[Goober]

Ya, I think I can see why this years primaries are gonna be kinda boring; Kerry has it in the bag, unless he actually has a major scandal looming over him.

There are places that do not hold primaries, I will find the site again later . . .