Pa. to consider moving up presidential primary

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04348/426270.stm

Gov. Ed Rendell said today he'll set up a special task force to look at recommending changes in state election laws, with the most important issue being a study of whether to move up the 2008 presidential primary election from late April to February or March.

Rendell said 2008 will be a key year because both political parties will be nominating presidential candidates. He said the current system gives rural states with relatively small populations, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, too much influence over the candidate-selection process. By the time Pennsylvania holds its primary in late April -- as happened this year and in other presidential election years -- the candidates are basically already chosen.

He wants a large state like Pennsylvania, with both urban and rural areas and a diverse racial and economic makeup, to have more influence over which candidates are chosen by the parties.

[dmkinsey]

1. Exactly what Michigan did

We moved our caucus to Feb 7.
Plenty of folks complaining about the front-loaded primary calendar but hey, who wants to wait until the question has been decided.
Reality dictates vote early or be irrelevant.
The DNC is looking at ways to improve the calendar too

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

2. Good, but how about an open primary in PA too?

If PA would allow an open primary, I could become a Dem and STILL VOTE AGAINST Santorum in the primary. I wish they'd consider that too.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. But then Republicans could vote in the Democratic primary

and try to help the candidate with the least potential of winning in the general election.

[hopein08]

4. I'm against open primaries too

Unless of course the Republicans did the same thing and I could go in and do the exact same thing that Freddie Stubbs mentioned as being possible in an open Dem. primary:evilgrin: LOL!

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. But if there is only one GOPer on the ballot...

...there would not be much opportunity fo mischief on our part. Take 2000 for example. There were several Democrats running for the U. S. Senate, but only one Republican. If that system had been in effect, Republicans could have not worried about Santorum in the primary and cast balloots for the weakest Democrat.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

6. But wouldn't the Independents help the Dems? n/t

[hopein08]

8. Hmmm...

That would be taking too much of a chance for me. I wouldn't want to risk it, in all honesty. Of course, I know that you would do what was right in both primaries but there are others out there who might not. ;-) My Repub aunt actually thought about getting together a group of people to switch to Democrat for the primaries and screw things up by voting for Sharpton.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

9. 2 can play at that game. Heinz as Repub. primary candidate???

Heinz against Santorum in the PA OPEN primary

then

Heinz against Hafer or Hoeffel or ???? in the general election......we all would be happy no matter who took the general election 06, I think.

[hopein08]

10. That would be cool...

I couldn't really agree more.

Someone here at DU, in another PA thread I think (you may even remember who, I don't...sorry!) suggested that without even considering a open primary. The idea there was that Heinz could get the votes to beat Santorum and than with would be him against a Dem.

I assume you're talking about Chris, right? I think I remember reading that he left the Rep. and switched to Independent at the same time as Teresa...after the Max Cleland thing. I know that Andre is registered as "declined to state" since the "Contract with America" in '94. If he doesn't want to change parties, he could just run as Independent and take even more votes from Santorum.

Anyway, we would all definitely be happy in your scenario!

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. There are more Republicans than Independents

[hopein08]

7. I see you point! Thanks for clarifying! n/t

[Rauterkus]

11. The early primary in Pres year is bad advice

Hi All,

I don't like the idea of an early election in the primary of presidential years. This could be bad for a few reasons.

First of all -- snow. We in PA should vote on a day when we are sure to get to the polls. To have our vote NOT count, hold it on a day when there is snow or a bad cold spell. We have winters. We can't ignore the facts of life.

I don't want people to risk their lives trying to fight the ice and cold to due their duty that could be done in a warmer month.

But, in Iowa, critics will say, it is cold too. However, they have more of an agie life and in the winter they don't do much else. They don't want to vote in the spring when there is other work to do.

An early vote puts petitions and political meetings in the darkness of the holidays. Try putting a round peg in a square hole. We gear up for elections after the first of the year, and for good habits and good reasons.

Furthermore, those in NH and Iowa take their time and duties with more seriousness than we would. They can do retail politics where that approach would fail in our larger state. I agree that they have a heavy burden -- but -- IMHO, they handle it well. If those in PA want to help, they can get out and go help there, or send the $ there. Then the PA folks can come home and work the PA race. We are not marginalized just because we don't vote then.

Finally, we get to be a heavy influence when it matters -- as the end nears. Look at DEAN as an example. He blew up. Others are sure to do the same in other years. If a fraud was to win the early races, and PA was in that early wave -- we'd be an aid to the foolery. I'd much rather have the tipping point go to the back end of the election cycle and not to the front. When PA votes late, we become that knock out punch in the time when it matters greatly.

To Rendell, I'd ask him, would he rather win a pre-season game or the Super Bowl?

Please, think again.

Ta.

[Dropkick]

12. Our vote doesn't count as it is...

..So I don't agree with your first point. I would MUCH rather have the chance to choose from 4, 5, 6, 7, or more candidates that the paltry 2 we end having every primary. It's all fine and dandy if your candidate ends up on top before they get to the PA primaries,but everyone else is ass out.

Not to mention, I seem to recall several blizzards coming through in April, so the whole "But it's WINTER!!" point is pretty flimsy. And I have family in Iowa, and believe me, their winters are MUCH harsher than what we get here.

I work full-time, I'm a single mother, and I use public transport, so how is someone like me gonna go to Iowa or NH to "help"?

I would much rather actually have a choice. Call me silly, but I don't think voters actually having a choice in candidates is a bad thing.

[rabid_nerd]

14. As a Pennsylvania party official, I respectfully disagree.

In fact, I'm trying hard to get ON the panel about moving the date up.

This is about Presidential Primaries, when our votes counts for NOTHING in April - so why not January, when it will at least count for SOMETHING?

And your attacks about Dean are distasteful, considering Kerry's own dismal failure as a candidate - perhaps Pennsylvania's better balanced representation of the U.S. population - from two large cities on each end with a broad rural middle with agriculture, mountainous regions and forests would have driven a different candidate than the elite caucuses of Iowa or the hidey-hole lack of diversity that is New Hampshire.

[mermaid]

15. The Way To Deal With That Problem Is To Allow Early/Absentee Voting

like Texas does.

I voted in the Texas Primary, for example, a week before Primary day.

If they allowed early voting in Pennsylvania, weather wouldn't be a factor, because, surely, sometime in a two week timeframe, you'd be able to get to the polls to vote, since early voting allows one to vote at ANY location, not just their home precinct...and they set up voting locations at places like grocery stores, etc.

THEN we could have the early primary, AND not worry too much about weather. We need to allow Early/Absentee voting in the PA Primary.