Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjevans | Hacker News Reader

If absolute fairness were the reason for change ALL parties that primary would do so by some algorithm that's transparent.

E.G. 5 Primary waves (Tuesdays/weeks/months) sorted by the 10 states with the least population to the most population.

Why? It's a better rough approximation for a representative sample over an increasingly large window of voters than the current process, and still keeps any benefit of ramping up from smaller to larger populations to narrow overall selection in the field. Plus the algorithm is so simple that it can be outlined in a sentence.

View on HN

There’s some logistical issues as some States run the elections so the individual parties can’t pick their own primary dates (unless they pay for themselves which I think they’re loathe to do).

Assuming parties could pick the primary border, I think it’d be most advantageous to pick the States sorted by the absolute value of the win/loss percentage for a given state. That way highly contested States get an earlier say in the process and presumably a candidate that is more favorable in those markets comes out ahead earlier in the process.

I'll take any change over usurping Iowa (though IMO New Hampshire actually functions quite well historically as the first primary based on my recollections, I think the worst that happens is that a small state gets good roads), but going small population to large population kinda still "discriminates" against large urban centers.

I think an established rotation would be better, and at least a medium sized state rotating in the "first wave".

I don't understand. If you're going to change it, why don't do the primary on the same day like any other country?

> If you’re going to change it, why don’t do the primary on the same day like any other country?

It is not true that “every other country” has parties select their presidential (or nearest equivalent, whether as head of state or head of government, other countries frequently divorcing those roles) candidate by simultaneous national elections. Sometimes, they don’t even (in a legal sense) choose a candidate at all, though the party may have its own process of deciding and announcing who its members responsible for the leadership election (e.g., MPs in Westminster-style system) will vote for should they secure the necessary majority to decide the outcome on their own.

In fact, I couldn’t off the top of my head name even a single country that uses a national simultaneous primary to select party nominees for election head of government or head of state, can you?

In Argentina, by law, the candidates for all national elections for all parties are selected by las PASO (mandatory simultaneous open primaries), which are national simultaneous elections. I don't know if there are many other such countries, but there's one.

You're on to something there. Keep digging. Perhaps you'll come to the truth of the matter that the USA's political system is undemocratic to no end.

How is the US worse than other countries where the majority-party apparatus selects the country's leader with no involvement of the electorate? Just look at the prime ministers the UK has cycled through to date with no elections.

Selecting a head of government through the electoral college is less democratic than one elected person from every riding deciding who is the leader collectively.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com