What Is Voter Satisfaction Efficiency?

Re:What Is Voter Satisfaction Efficiency? by elihu on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @06:42PM (#27611490)

I'm not convinced eliminating primaries is a good idea. They have a useful role in reducing the effort and cost of campaigning in a general election. Consider a scenario where some party spends a hundred million dollars in the general election promoting one candidate versus another party that spends a hundred million dollars in the general election split between five different candidates. I would expect the former party to be more likely to get their candidate elected that the latter.

Also another nice thing about primaries is that they're staggered. I think it's ridiculous that Iowa and New Hampshire always go first, but ignoring that it's great that a candidate without a lot of funding only has to focus on a couple of states in the initial stage, and can use success in the early states to gain momentum (and funding). That means you don't have to be some self-funding rich person to run for president, which is a nice property.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What Is Voter Satisfaction Efficiency? by specialist on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @11:53PM (#27613800)

> They have a useful role in reducing the effort and cost of campaigning in a general election.

If the goal is to reduce costs, the conventional wisdom is to shorten the campaign season. Time box them. Say 4 weeks.

Eliminating primaries reduces one whole campaign cycle. (Candidates consider primary and general election as two separate campaigns.)

> it's great that a candidate without a lot of funding

Third party access to the ballot is crucial. Support proven methods. Public financing of campaigns is probably the most effective. Fair redistricting lowers barriers. Greatly increase the number of representatives by reducing the size of districts. There are many other proposals.

[ Parent | on HN ]