Maybe this isn't such a good idea after all

[imported_Shivetya]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20070315-042123-9871r


the problem that becomes apparent is that if too many "big" states move their primaries forward that the small and middle states will get ignored. After all, same as the Presidential elections candidates will only have to work certain "key" states and ignore the rest.

The problem with the current system is that good candidtates get eliminated too soon. Combine this with the press trying to decide who can debate and who cannot and we end up with only people the press approves of. Look at the two old warhorses the Press loves, Hillary and McCain. Regardless of their approval ratings in each party the press trots them out every time an election rolls around.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If the big states are at the tail end, the little states are felt to have to much influence on weeding out the candidates.

If the big states are up front, the impact is as you described.

 

[tw1164]

Just have all federal primaries on April 15 (or the first business day after it). I hope this 2008 election cycle is an abnormality, its going to be too long.

 

[BDawg]

Maybe they should all be at the same time. As a NC voter, I'm upset that the candidates are already cemented by the time our primary comes around.

 

[KB]

I wonder how many states have thought this: "Lets have the next presidential primary the day after we elect the president. That way our states gets double attention."

 

[nageov3t]

there is a problem, but this is getting kind of silly now.

there's got to be a happy medium between 2-3 states (Iowa, NH, SC), none of which are particularly representative of the national landscape in terms of diversity, pretty much determining who the presidential candidates will be versus having every single primary on the same day.

does anyone honestly thing any politician would give a rat's @ss about biofuel if the first primary wasn't in Iowa?

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: tw1164
Just have all federal primaries on April 15 (or the first business day after it). I hope this 2008 election cycle is an abnormality, its going to be too long.

Yep, then all the states get equal billing. The true 'Super Tuesday", or whatever day it fell on.

 

[Lemon law]

Even though the political primary is now an institution in just about everyones living memory, its still a reform designed to break the power of the political back room deals. And the idea of a political primary
was largely championed shortly after the Teddy Roosevelt Presidency.

And like all reforms, it introduces new problems caused by the reform. Tinkering around with the order of the established primaries will bias the political selection process. But in my humble opinion, the disturbing new trend is a tendency to select the candidates far to early. Not a good thing when events are moving and the country is very divided. And now we are seeing a trend towards a two year Presidential campaign in which the opening bid has to be at least a 100 million in the bank. With voter
data bases computerized, constituencies sliced and diced, and candidates coming totally packaged. Tailor made with the only substantive debates on what earth brown color or plaid shirt to wear.

Maybe its time to totally rethink the political primary. And get money out of politics.

 

[ProfJohn]

Like everything else in a Democracy there is no 'perfect' system.
Have a national primary and only the candidates with lots of money and press coverage have a chance.
But have a piecemeal system and only a few states get to choose.

The parties should get together and devise a system that spreads the votes around to various parts of the country a couple states at a time.
Divide the country into its six regions: Northeast, South, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest and Northwest.
Then for each of the first 4 weeks you have 3 medium size states vote at a time spread out from various regions.
For the second 4 weeks you have one of the four big states vote along with a couple small states from different regions.
After 8 weeks half the states will have voted and you wrap it up with 3 weeks of multistate primaries.
To make it fair to all the states you rotate who votes early and who votes late between elections.

This will spread the votes out around the country and prevent regional candidates from having an unfair advantage and should provide for better canidates overall.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: tw1164
Just have all federal primaries on April 15 (or the first business day after it). I hope this 2008 election cycle is an abnormality, its going to be too long.

I am all for this, but at the same time I think that any candidate who can get onto a majority of the ballots (as in 26+ states) should then be admitted to the ballots of ALL states and participate in nationally televized debates. If this means 2+ hour debates or debates across multiple days with one subject per day then so be it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even though the political primary is now an institution in just about everyones living memory, its still a reform designed to break the power of the political back room deals. And the idea of a political primary
was largely championed shortly after the Teddy Roosevelt Presidency.

And like all reforms, it introduces new problems caused by the reform. Tinkering around with the order of the established primaries will bias the political selection process. But in my humble opinion, the disturbing new trend is a tendency to select the candidates far to early. Not a good thing when events are moving and the country is very divided. And now we are seeing a trend towards a two year Presidential campaign in which the opening bid has to be at least a 100 million in the bank. With voter
data bases computerized, constituencies sliced and diced, and candidates coming totally packaged. Tailor made with the only substantive debates on what earth brown color or plaid shirt to wear.

Maybe its time to totally rethink the political primary. And get money out of politics.

Point one: 100% true, we will most likely know who the winner is before the first vote is cast this time around, unless America grows tired of Hillary and Obama and someone else can sneak in.
Point two: Never happen. Money is considered free speech since you use that money to buy advertising. If you limit spending then the people with the best name will win every time and the people like Bill Richardson will never have a chance.

 

[Moonbeam]

Everybody will be better off when California choose the President. We are the cutting edge of American civilization and where the rest of the states will be tomorrow.

 

[OrByte]

All of a sudden its a problem now that California wants to move its date up.

hmmmmmmmm...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Everybody will be better off when California choose the President. We are the cutting edge of American civilization and where the rest of the states will be tomorrow.

so why are you 3 hours behind NYC?

 

[IronWing]

The solution is simple: get rid of the primary system entirely and let the parties choose their own candidates using whatever system each party wants, without official government action, without public funding. The current system creates a false sense of party identity amongst voters and entrenchs the two dominant parties. Most folks who vote in the primaries belong to no political party and have no business selecting party candidates. Primaries also have the effect of skewing the candidate selection so that more appealing candidates appear on the final ballots, candidates that may not represent their own party's values. If one wants to pick a party's slate, one should join that party.

 

[Witling]

Ironwing. as you may know, primaries are a relatively recent development. (after the 60's). Before that, candidates were chosen in smoke-filled back rooms. I think that the primaries may have been a major mistake in American politics. The primaries put a premium on rejecting moderate candidates and picking extreme candidates. But, I agree with Moonbeam. California has something to say. It's what the future will look like.

 

[Lemon law]

Non Prof John does make a semi valid point when he points out that---Point two: Never happen. Money is considered free speech since you use that money to buy advertising. If you limit spending then the people with the best name will win every time and the people like Bill Richardson will never have a chance.

And the ruling on the money is free speech comes from our supreme court. I just want to point out that our supreme court does have a history of reversing its opinions in the face changing reality. Maybe not fast enough to suit many, but that money is free speech position may change in the future.
Or new laws may be written that defacto reduce the power of money in politics without directly confronting the free speech issue.

 

[Narmer]

Off-topic but why do politicians always talk with their hand out and thumps-up? Extremely nauseating and annoying. I won't vote for anyone that does that. Makes them all look generic.

 

[imported_Gimli]

I don't care if the move the primaries up or back, what I care about is the stupid political ads we're going to start seeing and they will then last until the general election. It's enough to get a barf bag ready and set it besides the couch just to be safe.

 

[Red Dawn]

If the California Primary had been moved up back in the 2000 Elelction we might of had President McCain instead of the incompetent buffon we have now.