I did find a reference to a “non-political primary meeting” in Marion County, Texas, which was intended for whites to nominate candidates for office.

So use of “primary” for a statewide party nominating election is somewhat of an oxymoron. It would appear to be more appropriate for Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana to call their initial election a primary.

When Louisiana had runoff general elections for Congress, they were held on the first Saturday in December. The 2002 Mary Landrieu-Suzanne Terrell runoff was on December 7.

At the 1912 Republican convention, Taft won most of the delegates from Roosevelt’s home state of NY, while Roosevelt won most of the delegates from Taft’s home state of Ohio.

At the 1920 Republican convention, Hiram Johnson turned down the VP spot on tickets headed by Warren Harding and Philander Knox, as Johnson was aiming for the presidency. Both Harding and Knox died during the next presidential term, so Johnson would have become president if he had taken either deal.

If it is stupid for California to hold the elections for the legislature in June and November, isn’t double stupid to hold non-partisan elections for county and city offices in June and November, and have the first round coincide with partisan primaries.

In Louisiana, you can hardly call the first Tuesday after the first Monday a November a “general election”, when offices in general are not contested at that time. Though the runoffs are called a “general election” they are held later in the month.

I did come across an editorial in the New York Times about the 1915 referendum, but they seemed to mostly pleased that it was Hiram Johnson’s proposal that was beaten. I don’t think they much cared for Teddy Roosevelt after he challenged Taft. Johnson was the Bull Moose VP candidate.

Jim (#15), when the newspapers use “open primary” they are not just trying to save space. They are swallowing — hook, line and sinker — the spin of the proponents, who realize that open primaries (properly so called) are popular with many voters.

#28: That’s the point. If it’s possible for someone to get elected, it’s a general election, not a “primary,” regardless of what you, the Louisiana legislature, or anyone else calls it.

#29: The U. S. Supreme Court already has a common terminology for the types of primaries.

I take it you’re talking about the parties in California. It’s a closed primary when only party members may vote, and it’s semi-closed when independents are the only non-members who are invited to participate.

The direct primary had its beginnings in 1842 with the “primary meetings” of the Democratic Party of Crawford County, Pennsylvania. The party used this method of nomination as a replacement for the nominating convention.

The problem with the terminology is that political science is a social science and doesn’t have precise laws.

What method of nomination do you consider to be MORE democratic than the party primary? When a candidate is nominated by petition, there are, depending on the jurisdiction, typically far fewer people signing that petition than participate in a party primary.

d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t

The point is that, when the first round of voting occurs on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, it’s a general election, not a “primary.” And when a second round is necessary, it’s a runoff.

Mississippi has the first round of voting for such nonpartisan offices as judges and election commissioners on the November ballot, and we certainly don’t call those “primaries.”

Do you have any info on the 1915 California “top two” referendum?

It is a corruption of the word “primary” to use it as a noun rather than an adjective in the first place, and to invest it with any more meaning than of a first election of a series.

When some states simply had new elections when no candidate received a majority, how were these referred to? I have seen them referred to them as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, trials. But perhaps they were actuall referred to as primary, secondary, and tertiary trials.

“The party primary is the most democratic method of nomination.”

You of course mean the most democratic method of partisan nomination. The fact that there are less democratic methods of partisan nomination, does not mean that the party primary is the most democratic method of nomination.

I don’t know if you watched the Louisiana legislative hearing when they were going to get rid of the minor party congressional primaries. Their stated reason was because their lockout devices on their voting machines could not handle a large number of parties.

The lockout devices are manipulated by an election judge so that any voter could vote, for example, in a legislative election, but prevented from voting in a congressional party primary, enforcing an unconstitutional voter qualification. More discrete than a water cannon to be sure. But hardly democratic.

Are legislative elections in Nebraska or Louisiana more expensive than those in other states of similar demographics and district size? Have candidates been discouraged from running for office?

I don’t know the answer in the case of Louisiana’s election statutes. The current law definitely refers to the first election for all offices but federal offices as a primary, and there are bunches of provisions that say that they don’t apply to congressional elections. I doubt that they would have changed the terminology, but rather simply made them not apply to congressional elections.

I got an e-mail about North Dakota that had California in the title, and one about Louisiana.

One of the issues in Foster v. Love was that Louisiana was actually certifying election before November.

The Louisiana “top two” (“open primary”) is an extension and part of the residue of the old one-party system, which was in reality a NO-PARTY system.

Even in the “nonpartisan primary,” the purpose is to “nominate” candidates for the nonpartisan “general election.”

Even in the old one-party system in the South, there were Soviet-style general elections, in which a few voters turned out and gave complimentary votes to the Democratic nominees.