Let's keep the old primary system and get rid of the old media "system".
A national primary loads the dice in favor of the candidate with the most name recognition and money. Having primaries in small states first, lets more obscure candidates a chance to show their stuff and gain momentum, or lose it. I prefer having Iowa and New Hampshire vet candidates on a retail basis first. Granted, in a perfect world, which states got this honor would rotate. But heaven forbid if it should ever be California or New York, which are anomic and media driven, and in the case of New York, the GOP is really more of a phone booth party.
A national primary is a trojan horse for abolishing the electoral college.
If a national primary were ever established, the political pressure to abolish the electoral college would become unstoppable. Pundits would have a field day -- "A national election is good enough for the primaries, so why isn't it good enough for the general?"
Speaking as a distant observer, I see it as somewhat odd that the government gets involved with party candidate selection; surely this is the job of the parties themselves. It is certainly strange to push this into the hands of the Federal Government, rather than the several states.
I'm gonna go with the old saying, always follow the money. A one day event would pound that reality into the system in no uncertain terms. The candidate with the most money upfront, before even one vote is cast will be the nominee. Yes, I realize that's already a big part of the whole process as it's in place currently, but a single day vote will make it even worse.
Hillary has alreay been working for a long time to get her war chest ready. If you can think of the name of any other Democrat in a similar position, put their name on the table.
"Democrats will choose someone with greater substance and integrity than Hillary!"
This will not be hard to do, since she has no substance, no experience (very important), no love for country, she is a devout Marxist, she hates the military, and would be on a par with Kerry when it comes to pandering to the enemies of the U.S. -- even though she is standard Democrat anti-American trash, one of her biggest problems is that her resume (qualifications) is a blank piece of paper.
She is accomplished though at bimbo-suppression, throwing lamps, generating the foulest language, spraying anti-semitism, maintaining relationships with the enemies of the U.S., defending and promoting anti-establishment militants, and totally lacking in self-respect and ethics.
Other than that, she would be a fine candidate...(looking for barf bucket...)
There is no primary system. Think about it. In fact the Republicans and Democrats should be footing the bill for their use of public money supporting their party selection process.
Tactically, the problems with the primary system in its presetn form are due for the most part to the Democratic party's schizophrenic nature...The hard left in the party controls the primaries. A natinal primary would have given us Dean as a nominee..a scary thought indeed..You need a sequence of primaries to allow different candidates to ebb/flow, and see how they can handle the political process..a vetting if you will...Look at Iowa and NH for whom they eliminated..The Dem party should have changed the rules, and kicked the candidates out of the debates, those with less that 10% of the vote...Again..Iowa eliminated Dean..
I take a somewhat different view.
There is absolutely no reason why political parties are permitted to involve the governments, states and federal, in the selection of their candidates.
Governments should only be involved in the actual election of candidates to public office. Political parties should choose their candidates by whatever means they see fit, including reading tea leaves. But they should not have access to nor restrictions from government mechanisms in doing so.
Bluntly, deny political parties government support, including voter registration (by party), and polling services.
This would then return the primary system to its original function of the party members determining the course of their parties. It would also make things much harder for media manipulation.
Will there be abuses under this method? Of course. That is not the concern of government. It is the concern of the party members. But most importantly it provides for political parties to grow & evolve, wither & die...all at the dictates of its members.
Sounds a lot like political free enterprise. Or just maybe it's how a healthy representative republic functions.
Just a thought. Of course, this is silly, as Jesse is going to do away with the electoral college anyway..
Of course that'd be 'too easy'.
You're right about the problem. Maine and Iowa are not bellwethers of any sort.
...no incumbent President since Chester Arthur in 1884 was unsaddled in favor of James Blaine has ever been denied renomination if he sought that.
Fixed it up for ya. No charge, of course. Boola boola, and all that. (g!)
The Founders would have loved this idea. Why weren't you there!? ;))
I'd be for a national primary if each state could only vote for residents within their state to go to their respective party national conventions where party delegates would pick the best candidates their parties have to offer. Each state would be limited to their two top picks from each party as candidates for president. State party delegates would be selected at the same time.
National conventions are now little more than Broadway plays with very little substance. They nothing more than a rubber stamp of policies agreed to before the opening act. This needs to be changed.
I'd like to see a two-tiered process where an earlier primary narrows the field rather early, thus eliminating the nuisance ticks.