Monday, November 13, 2006

Or, if at convention we endorsed a candidate?

In Massachusetts, at the Convention, the delegates vote and any candidate getting more than 50% of those votes is "endorsed" by the party, and if no candidate gets 50%, then the lowest vote-getter is eliminated from the ballot and the vote is taken again. Here's a link for more information.


MelGX said...

I really like that idea. Not only would it make for a lively convention, but would solve the problem of too many candidates on the ballot. Is there a downside?

Amy Morton said...

I am sure that there is. Reducing voter participation and making the process less accessible are likely downsides. It's better to have a overt process where the party assists or discourages a candidate than to have what we had in July. I think we need to look at various models from other states.

Chris said...

I'm not sure that they actually eliminate them from the primary ballot, I think they just do a runoff until they have an endorsed candidate.

This isn't a bad idea, it just offers a way for the state convention to offer it's choice to the larger primary electorate. It can be a good way for a candidate to communicate to the larger electorate that they have a good organization, and if the word of the state committee or convention is worth anything, it can be a powerful endorsement.

decaturguy said...

As I posted on my blog, I think this is a bad idea. Despite primaries sometimes being messy and expensive, it is a critical training camp, so to speak, for candidates to test out their message, and motivate the party faithful, before moving on to the general election.

If it were limited to a convention, only the party activists would be involved in the decisionmaking process (really, how many regular primary voters would show up to a convention?), it would produce only "insider" candidates, not candidates would could win statewide.

I think it would further reduce the Georgia Democratic Party to a social club for party activists, not a real political party.

Over in the GOP, Reed and Cagle had a bloody battle for the primary. But it produced the better candidate for that party, no question. Cagle was a better candidate because of his battle with Reed.