10/19 Discussion Post/ and student's response

This is a class discussion post that needs to be approximately 2-5 paragraphs in length. 

***Discussion Post should be followed accordingly each question asked needs to be answered.

********I will post the students response below.  With the Student response it should be 1 paragraph in length reply to the students disccusion.

********************Discussion Post*****************

Electoral rules within presidential primary elections are dictated by state laws. For instance, states decide whether to hold a primary election or a caucus, states decide the date of this event, and states decide who can vote/caucus in each race (e.g., closed primaries, top-two primaries, etc). Below are some illustrative resources.



To what extent do state laws shape primary outcomes? Are some states more influential in determining party nominees because of their electoral laws? Provide examples to support your position. Consider the role of the national party (including the nomination process and allocation of superdelegates) as well as the demographics of typical primary voters (Chapter 10).

*Note: Reaction posts should be approximately 2-5 paragraphs in length. Responses to other students do not have a length requirement but serve as your participation grade (i.e., the more thorough the better).

************************ Student Response #1 ***************************

Presidential primaries are often looked at as confusing because the manner in which party primary elections are conducted varies widely from state to state. There are in turn six types of primaries and each state chooses to abide by one. State laws follow either closed primaries, partially closed primaries, partially open primaries, open to unaffiliated voters primaries, open primaries, or top-two primaries. States with closed primaries are more successful in determining party nominees. These states include: Delaware Nevada Pennsylvania Florida New Mexico Kentucky New York Maryland Oregon

States with closed primaries are more successful because they require their voters to select their party affiliation before voting and does not allow cross-overs. This action allows these states to have strong party organizations. 


************************ Student Response #2 ***************************

I believe that state laws have a large hand in shaping the outcomes of primary elections. In the supplemental article titled “Our Broken Presidential Nominating System,” the flaws of state laws and primaries is expanded upon. John Frederick Martin, the author, explains that state primaries eliminate candidates sometimes before votes are even cast, “In 2015, more than half a dozen candidates dropped out before a single ballot was cast.” This is a problem for candidates that do not have the funding and full support of the two national parties and creates a way for state laws to have a heavy hand in the outcome of primaries. 

I do believe that some states are more influential in determining party nominees because of their electoral laws. The states with larger holds in the electoral college seem to always be the deciding factors in elections, especially states that can always go one way or another; such as Florida. State laws in these larger states make it to where candidates can almost assuredly lock up their parties nomination by winning these states in their given primaries.