Talk:United States presidential primary

message: Are primaries for members or for everyone? How does one get the right to vote in a primary for a certain party? Do all parties have primaries, or only the major parties? Is it required by law, or just common practice? Is the infrastructure for the voting party or government infrastructure, e.g. who counts the votes after a primary? Does voting in a primary have any consequences, or is it secret? How many people vote in primaries? Are they targeted via mainstream media or is it a small and dedicated, high-educated group that is targeted using special channelS? Gerrit CUTEDH 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good questions! The rules vary by state. In some states you have to be previously registered as a Democrat/Republican to vote in that primary. In New Hampshire, all registered Republicans and registered Independents can vote in the Republican primary, and all registered Democrats and registered Independents can vote in the Democratic primary. Entry into the primaries are controlled by the parties EXCEPT that voting ion election day is supervised by local government, which counts the votes. Voting is secret in all primaries but OPEN in the Iowa Caucus and other caucuses. The primaries are very well covered by the media if there is a contest. The minor parties choose to not have primaries. Turnout varies but in a contested race expect 35-50% turnout of those eligible. Rjensen 19:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What Rjensen says is basically right, but I'd point out a couple of things. First, sometimes minor parties do participate. No party is actually required to pay any attention to the results of the primary (at least, not for president; the situation for state office is less clear). Parties make their own nominating rules and can pretty much do what they want; if they want to pick their presidential nominee in the classic "smoke-filled room" then as far as I know there's no law against it, and any such law would probably be unconstitutional. Presumably the parties resist the temptation to do that for fear that the public reaction to it would cost them votes. --Trovatore 19:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The state committees cannot push the boundaries too far, or they would risk being decertified by the national party under the party rules. But on top of the rules, a great deal of media and campaign infrastructure is in place in Iowa and New Hampshire and there is little incentive for a candidate to spend a lot of time in Alaska or Hawaii, which regularly hold GOP caucuses before Iowa, because they count for even less in the press than at convention. And there is the example of 1996; the Louisiana Republican Party moved their caucus up trying to upstage Iowa, and Phil Gramm's campaign wanted to use it to gain early momentum. Instead, he was humiliated by Pat Buchanan and quit the race after coming in fifth in Iowa. Other than the Iowa and New Hampshire-first rule, I don't think the national parties have strict rules on scheduling, so organizing something like Super Tuesday is a matter of coordination by state legislatures and parties and not any sort of mass civil disobedience. The costs of primaries are covered by the states with public funds, and different states fund their election commissions by different means.   The government's power to regulate the primaries derives from a 1941 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Classic, which states that even though a party is a private organization, because the state allows the parties to select candidates to hold elective office, a party primary is a state action. Also see Smith v. Allwright. -choster 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe South Carolina does not fund its primary with public dollars. Parties pay for the election process. See: Chris Cillizza, Chris. Fundraiser to Help Underwrite S.C. Primary Washington Post,Friday, February 23, 2007; Page A08.  Yellowdesk 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions from a European. 

message: I started out expanding the history section and ended up rewriting the entire article, partly to Indefatigable and Gerrit's concerns and to incorporate Rjensen's improvements. There's probably more to say in the criticisms and propsoed reforms sections, but I didn't have time to research them. Fire away. - choster 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job! I rephrased it slightly. Rjensen 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The history section looks good, but I think it would be helpful if someone could clarify how these two states got to hold their primaries first in the first place. Why were they singled out for this huge advantage? Sylvain1972 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history for New Hampshire is that thrifty yankees held their primary the same day they had their annual town meetings to establish their town budgets and taxes, in late winter/early spring, starting in 1916.  The towns only need to heat the town hall one day, and everyone was already in the room. Years later the primary became more and more significant, and party-boss influence diminished. New Hampshire became a method for individuals to upset the dominant trends and thinking, and demonstrate electability.  In 1952 Eisenhower demonstrated this by defeating Taft in the Republican primary. From the 1970s  the primary became earlier and earlier, as the state legislature attempted to keep New Hampshire in the public eye, and not incidentally, have the benefit of national expenditures in an economically challenged state. See New_Hampshire_primary, which needs expansion. -- Yellowdesk 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Hampshire & Iowa

message: I was wondering what the states were that held primaries between 1932 and 1968.  The current article says 13 or 14, but it would be useful, I think, to list them all (and even to have articles about each one and their history).  I can glean from various wikipedia articles on presidential elections in this period that there were, in one election or another, primaries in the following states:
#California
#Florida
#Illinois
#Indiana
#Maryland
#Massachusetts
#Nebraska
#New Hampshire
#New Jersey
#Ohio
#Oregon
#Pennsylvania
#Texas
#West Virginia
#Wisconsin
This, unfortunately, appears to be 15 states.  I will note, though, that I'd never heard of a Texas primary other than in the wikipedia article on the 1964 election.  The rest of them are more or less familiar to me.  Are any of these wrong?  Are there any others?  What states had primaries in 1920, but got rid of them by 1932?  Are there any good online sources on this stuff? john k 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Classic" primary states 

message: I think this article needs to be marked as biased.  The primary system is not without controversies, and the comments about Iowa and New Hampshire seems to support the status quo.  Comments about how Iowa and NH's early causes and primaries allegedly helps dark horse candidates or give campaigning a more person sense should be reserved for a "Controversies" section.  There is a debate about the current system.  For example, New Hampshire voters having disproportionally large influence is not universally viewed as a positive attribute. SiriusAlphaCMa 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: This article needs to explain why some states only hold cacuses (which seems to be of lesser value) and others hold primaries - especially since some articles (in 2008) suggested that basically anybody could join an Iowa cacus by pretending to live there and vote for of a candidate - ie, not a very serious voting system. --IceHunter (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came here to ask a similar question. Can someone add information explaining how state governments came to have a role in dictating to parties how they will select their candidates? I get the impression, for example, that primaries are held mostly by Democrats and Republicans, and that minor parties in the same states are small groups who automatically nominate their leader or what have you and don't have state primaries at all. Is it that some states have decreed the means of selection of Democrats and Republicans but not other parties? Or is it that if a party decides to have its nominees selected by convention delegates and decides to have those delegates selected by some process that involves asking the state to make its election facilities available for use by the public to vote in those primaries, then in those cases the states have rules governing how those primaries using its facilities will operate? I'm asking this particularly in light of Newt Gingrich's lawsuit against Virginia, claiming that the rule that signature gatherers be Virginia residents is unconstitutional. What is the source of this rule, and what constitutional restrictions can there possibly be on the right to have such a rule? To understand this, I feel I need to understand in the first place how Virginia has a role at all in dictating how the Republican Party will determine who can run in the Republican Primary in Virginia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Primaries are run by the states, caucuses are run by the parties. The party decides which process to use, but if it's a primary, it's run by the state. So the date of a primary is set by the state, but the date of a caucus is set by the party. And the rules of primaries are set by the state, subject to federal law, of course, hence Virginia's ballot access rule, and the subsequent lawsuit. Now why states get to run primaries - I don't know the history. But the parties like having the state run the primary, as then the party doesn't have to pay for it. Simon12 (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Related to "why primaries/caucus," I would like to read why the popular vote does not determine the candidate (both in primaries and general elections, mind you). I was surprised that there isn't such an explanation in the Controversy section, that's the biggest criticism I can find for the primaries as they are held today. 181.169.142.88 (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information: Why Primaries/Caucuses 

message: I just noticed that the piped link for Michigan Primary in the article directs to Michigan Democratic primary, 2008, thus ignoring the Republican primary. I added a see-also section to the Democratic page, and also created a disambiguation page Michigan Presidential Primary, 2008 (disambiguation) to sort out the difficulties. This article's link now goes to the disambig page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewLiberal (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Michigan Primary

message: Dumb question from someone unfamiliar with the US election process.
Is there some type of point scoring... I see news about this and that candidate "winning" a state. Do they get 1 point per state, or how does it work? Is there a tally of points won?
I read somewhere that the california vote "doesn't matter"... why is that?
Thanks for any clarification.
--Popoi (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not exactly "points" -- they get delegates pledged to vote for them that go to the party's national convention. How many delegates from each state is completely up to the party. The parties are free to completely ignore the primaries if they want. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I heard it, each state is allowed the same number of delegates as congressional representatives.  Some states send delegates proportional to the percentage of votes cast for each candidate (although they are not obligated to vote for anyone), others are winner-take-all.  The national party conventions can refuse to seat anyone they want, which sometimes leads to a free for all.  The whole process seems quite irrational, since the US Constitution never mentions parties.--W8IMP (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more complicated than that, and the rules are different for different parties (the rules are made by the party, not by law). The formula used by the Democrats takes into account the Democratic vote in the last election (last presidential election? last congressional election? I don't really know). The Republicans have their own formula; don't know if it's simpler or more complicated.  The Dems also have superdelegates, which can be viewed as a compromise between totally respecting the primary outcomes and entirely ignoring them. Minor parties often nominate their candidate before the primaries even happen. --Trovatore (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring? 

message: The article isn't particular clear why Florida and Michigin are punished by the Democratic Party. If they have a similar rule to the Republican party in not allowing primaries before 5th February, then why do South Carolina and New Hampshire escape? Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic 

message: Man, our coverage of the history of this stuff is still pretty bad - not so much this article, but the fact that we give no detailed accounts of primary results anywhere on Wikipedia is pretty disgraceful. We give winners, but no indication of the dates and order of primaries, whether they were primaries and caucuses, etc.  It's pretty bad. john k (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still terrible on the history 

message: I know the Green party of the United States has primary elections http://www.gp.org/index.php probably other "third" parties have them too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.193.29 (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other parties 

message: "In recent elections, the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have garnered over half the national and international media attention paid to the entire selection process."
Please clarify what the "half" is related to.  For example, does it mean half of the column space in newspapers with a circulation of over a certain size?  Or, perhaps, over half of the air time on cable programs with a viewership of over a certain size?Evonline (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Citations and Further Detail on the Following Statement 

message: I believe there should be a consolidated section on criticism of the primary system. An obvious flaw, which I didn't see mentioned anywhere in the article, is that primary elections are not held on the same day nationwide and, therefore, primary election results are not independent of each other. For example, if a candidate loses a series of early primaries in "small states" (with few actual delegates to the convention), support for him or her tends to plummet in subsequent polls, possibly forcing him/her out of the race even though he/she might have been otherwise originally competitive in other parts of the country. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Too, some sources (38) are no longer properly linked to  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.76.203 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the Primary System

message: An analysis of the 2012 Republican presidential primaries shows that not one West Coast or Mid-Atlantic state (New Hampshire is hardly representative of the NorthEast Corridor) votes before Super Tuesday, and only Washington and Massachusetts vote in the roughly-dozen Super Tuesday states (Washington votes only three days before Super Tuesday and no one will drop out because of poor results there, so it should be lumped into Super Tuesday).  This obviously tends to weed out the candidates that the higher-electoral-vote Democratic-heavy states would feel good about falling in behind. 69.253.135.39 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting as that is, unless it leads to some proposal for improving the article, this talk page is not the place to discuss it. --Trovatore (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative Bias in Primaries

message: The calendar schedule is out-of-date. It features the races for 2008, not the upcoming race in '12.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.254.223 (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar schedule out-of-date 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state.  Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles

message: Its really not clear from this article how much of the primary process is governed by State or Federal Law of the US and how much is just governed by the by-laws of the major parties. For comparison here in Australia we have a similar kind (though much much much less important) of party based vote for parliamentary leader for the Labour party but this is entirely governed by the party themselves, the government doesn't have anything to do with it. It would be good if someone with knowledge of the topic could clarify what is party policy, what is US law (state or federal) and perhaps even what is simply convention or tradition. 
Also noticeable is the lack of reference to other parties and independent candidates. I know that like in Australia no third party candidate is likely to win in the current system but if any of this is covered by US law then you would think it would apply to other parties as well? Unless there are regulations written which specifically refer to the republican and democratic parties? 130.56.214.142 (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the answer is, none of the process is covered by law, it is all up to the parties.  In fact the statement on the page about most states having "pledged" delegates that are "legally bound" to vote a certain way is a pile of garbage and should be removed.  Actually there are no laws, in any state, which require any delegate to vote a certain way, ever.  That's why they use the vague term "pledged."  It's like if you pledge to send $50 to a charity, it doesn't mean you really have to. Safulop (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Federal Government is not involved at all in the primary process. Even matching funds don't kick in until after a candidate becomes a nominee. There are literally no two states alike with the same laws, and the parties differ in party rules as well. As to Safulop's point about being "legally bound", you may be correct. The state cannot legally bind a delegate to a candidate in an open primary, as I understand it.  Nobs01 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status and clarity

message: * The first successful regional primary was Super Tuesday of March 8, 1988, in which nine Southern states united in the hope that the Democrats would select a candidate in line with Southern interests.[7] It failed as all but two of the eight major candidates won at least one primary on that day.
:(1) How can it be "successful" and "failed" at the same time?
:(2) A click on the Super Tuesday link says the first Super Tuesday was in 1984, not 1988.  Nobs01 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Tuesday

message: This article does not discuss who is entitled to stand as a candidate -- other than via links to ballot access, but that page explains only the requirements for being on a ballot in general and not whether a person needs, for example, to be a member of a particular political party in order to stand for that party's primary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably complicated, likely to vary from state to state and party to party, but sure, would be good to include.  Just a note though:  Naturally this article is in American English, so the correct word is "run", not "stand". --Trovatore (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entitlement to stand 

message: The text says:
:A major reason states try to increase their influence, and vie for earlier primaries, is that in recent years the races have usually been decided before the primary season has ended in June. For example, John McCain officially clinched the 2008 Republican presidential nomination in March,[10] while during that same month Barack Obama held a substantial lead in pledged delegates in the Democratic Party primaries.[11] In 2012, Obama faced no major challenger in the Democratic Party primaries since he had the advantage of incumbency (see below), while Mitt Romney gained enough delegates to be declared the presumptive Republican nominee by late April.[12]
As it stands, this is basically original research, but it is also badly expressed. Obama's incumbency in 2012 is basically irrelevant. Romney is a bad example. This is also cherry-picking because the 2016 primaries were not decided early. The use of the phrase "in recent years"  is therefore misleading. Also,  the first sentence is illogical. "A major reason states try to increase their influence"... is to increase their influence. I also don't know what is meant by "states" here. Is it state voters, state party bosses, state legislatures...?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front-loading 

message: Purpose.
The purpose of this system is to determine the state order of the 2024 Presidential Primaries (and beyond) based on overall voter participation in each state.
Voter Participation Index
The Maine Presidential Primary System (MPPS) creates a Voter Participation Index (VoPI) based off of the 2020 Census.  The VoPI is calculated on the number of a each state’s citizens 18 years and older (C)tabulated by the 2020 census, divided into the number of registered voters (R) or (R/C), plus the percentage of the number of voters participating in the Congressional Mid-term elections (M) divided by the number of registered voters (R) or (M/R). 
The final formula is VoPI =(R/C) + (M/R).  
Order.
After the results of the 2022 Mid-term elections, the order of the 2024 presidential primary states (and territories) are determined by the highest to lowest VPI ranking. The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary will no longer automatically go first and second, respectively; both states are subject to the VoPI in 2024.
2024 Presidential Primary Schedule.
Beginning Saturday, February 17th, the first seven of the VoPI ranked states begin the primary season.  D.C. or any territory are included if any are ranked above the seventh highest state on the VoPI ranking. Each round of primaries is every two weeks, with seven states each, and the last round having eight. For each round of primaries, the D.C. or territory condition applies to the 14th, 21st, 28th, 35th, 42nd state. The 2024 Presidential Primary Schedule is as follows: February 17th, March 9th, March 30th, April 20th, May 11th, June 1st and June 15th.
Vote By Mail.
A state’s presidential primary order may change every four years; therefore, a separate presidential primary election, conducted by mail or by voting polls, may be necessary.  Voting by mail is less expensive than having polls, more secure with a paper ballot, and generates more voter participation. It also counterbalances states without a gubernatorial election during the mid-terms, when voter turnout is usually higher.  All registered voters are mailed a ballot three weeks before their state’s primary, with an 18-day voting period is available to cast their ballots.  Each ballot lists all of the major political party candidates.  A voter selects a party, chooses one of that party’s candidates, places the ballot back in the envelope, marks on the envelope what party they voted for, and puts the ballot in the mailbox or stops by a drop off location. The paper ballots are tabulated with a Scantron. (NOTE: Voting by Mail offsets states that do not have a gubernatorial election coinciding with the mid-term elections.)
Open or Closed Primary.
States have the option for an open or closed primary. Political parties may argue that an open-primary violates the First Amendment’s Right of Association; the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise in favor of Washington State’s open primary process. (Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party 2008). (Note states with vote-by-mail elections have higher participation rates;  For instance, Oregon participation rate in the 2018 Mid-term elections was 63% as opposed to the national average of 49%.)
Winner Take All by Congressional District Populat Vote.
The candidate who wins each congressional district’s popular vote receives seven delegates.  The candidate with the highest overall popular vote in each state receives an additional 14 delegates. The total number of delegates available is 3,787 (only seven for D.C. and each of the territories or 42 total).  The first candidate to reach 1,894 (50% + 1) becomes the party’s nominee.  To ensure the will of the voters, there are no super, automatic, or at-large delegates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Turcotte (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maine Presidential Primary System 

message: Is it Kindergarten for future presidents? Okay, I'm joking - I can work it out from context, and from the first sentence. What I'm actually getting at is that the page launches into things too fast. It should really start with a potted definition of a presidential primary. I'm going to add my own, but I'm not American. It will not be good. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the Heck is a Presidential Primary?