[E. Pluribus Unum]

I think all 57 states should have a runoff primary on the same day. Repeat until somebody gets over 50% of the vote.

The GOP oligarchy will not like that, because they will lose control.

Which is an excellent reason to do it.

[Vigilanteman]

The big problem is not the order of the primares, the marathon structure or anything of the sort so much as it is the allocation of delegates.

A farier system would award:

1. One fifth of the delegates based on electoral vote value.
   
2. One fifth of the delegates based on GOP congressmen, U.S. Senators, governor and control of state legislatures.
   
3. Three-fifths of the delegates based on the ability of the state to actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP presidential ticket in November.

   And, yes, Wyoming might actually end up with more delegates than Massachusetts under this formula. If it is unfair, then it is unfair to Wyoming, which has delivered 12 of 12 possible electoral votes to the GOP ticket over the last four election cycles whereas Massachusetts has deliverd exactly 0.

[okie01]

I think all 57 states should have a runoff primary on the same day. Repeat until somebody gets over 50% of the vote. The GOP oligarchy will not like that, because they will lose control.

Be careful what you wish for.

A national primary leaves the nomination open for the candidate with the most money -- the guy who rounded up the most donors with the most money.

Nine times out of ten, that will be the guy the oligarchy is behind.

The advantage of proceeding state-by-state is that it allows the under-funded candidate to focus his limited funds on one state at a time, proving his appeal and gathering supporters over time.

[nascarnation]

Repeat until somebody gets over 50% of the vote.

I don't think states would be all that excited to have to run multiple primary elections with no real ability to know how many times the process would have to repeat.