Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EternalVigilance

What really bothers me is, why are we pushing these primaries up all the time. It is said so that certain states can have more influence. If that is so before long the primaries will be held before the president swears the oath of office.

I do not believe that the states should be mandated by the parties but shouldn’t the governors conference get together and work out a plan where each state could have and equitable say in there states primary, and move the primary season back to march at least.

With the advent of modern media it seems to me getting your views out to the public after the primaries should not be that complicated, and shouldn’t take eight months.

Also pet peve alert ‘How about a real convention for a change and not a corination, didn’t things used to be decided at conventions.’

I stopped watching conventions after Bush 41’s.

Sorry one more pre peve ‘How about a state of the union address that adressed the state of the union and not a laundry list of handout’s’.


72 posted on 12/02/2007 4:44:17 AM PST by qman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: qman

The whole thing is a power play. One that conservatives and conservatism are NOT going to benefit from.


73 posted on 12/02/2007 6:33:34 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Huckabee, Thompson, Paul, McCain, Giuliani, Romney: "Pro-Choice" for states...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: qman
What really bothers me is, why are we pushing these primaries up all the time. It is said so that certain states can have more influence.

The whole thing is an abomination -- the only thing it helps is to "move the herd" -- the idjits who want to "vote like everyone else, vote for a winner."

If I was King :) I would decree a choice of two options: Either hold ALL primaries on the same day, OR, stagger the actual election according to the same schedule used for the primaries. No more "election day" in November. Instead, we'd have each state with its own election day, yay many months after it held its primary. (ALL states would have their election day delayed by the same amount of time.)

Since no one would stand for the second option, we'd end up with the first. Ain't I a clever King? :)

(If primary voters in one state can base their decision on how the herd moved in another state, then why shouldn't voters in the general election have that same option? Oh? Because it'd be stupid? Bingo. If ALL primaries were held on the same day, nationwide, we'd have at least some chance of getting a candidate based on something other than smarm and money, since NO ONE would be able to vote based on how some other state voted.)

91 posted on 12/16/2007 12:10:11 PM PST by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson