Hear, hear!
I absolutely agree with the idea of completely closed primaries. I believe we have had enough of “crossover” voters dictating our choices for us.
If the State Parties don’t like it, tough. Don’t get seated.
Of course, the imbecile Republican Party at the national level would never do such a sensible thing...
I’m in favor of all except the multi-state primary spread out across the country. I’d rather have primaries grouped by region, like say southwest, northwest,northeast, mid-Atlantic, etc which would allow the candidates to spend their time and most importantly, money, in one area rather than hopping from side to side across the entire country. Rotate among the regions, though, so no area has that “first”/”Most important” claim
If we don’t get the national primary day, I nominate Indiana for the first basket primary in January. We vote in May so we get ignored completely, but we are counted on as a shoe-in red state. I’m tired of our state getting screwed out of the primary process.
It’s probably just me but I feel as though the liberal, MSM is completely manipulating and orchestrating the whole “primary” process this year. The “media” wants McCain and Clinton and that’s what we the people are going to get whether we like it or not. IMHO.
It’s probably just me but I feel as though the liberal, MSM is completely manipulating and orchestrating the whole “primary” process this year. The “media” wants McCain and Clinton and that’s what we the people are going to get whether we like it or not. IMHO.
Change this to All Presidential delegates shall be determined by a full vote of Regestered Republicans Only.
This is a necessary, and well-thought-out idea. Kudos. The MSM will sabotage us at every turn, as they have been doing for over 30 years now.
I find it incomprehensible that 3.7 percent of the USA can so totally destroy the candidacy of ALL conservatives running in the Republican Party. SC, NH, IA, and NV amount to ONLY 11,000,000 people total. The fact that they destroyed the ability of 96.3 percent ot the USA to even have a say in this primary is unconscionable. It may be that Fred, Duncan, Tancredo, Brownback, and Keyes used national polls to make their decisions to quit, but I find it hard to believe that the four above states don’t represent a serial financial hurdle to be overcome before going on to the rest of the US. The overblown importance of those four states in this process must be fixed before 2012. I don’t have a clue yet how to fix this.
Also: Rotate all the states (even the big ones) through an early schedule so that everyone gets access at some point to the front line.
OR
Let each state bid when they want their primary to take place. The earlier the primary, the fewer the delegates they control according to some logarithmic or steep curve formula.
Sorry. All primary elections should be replaced by caucuses. Caucuses provide a place for arguments to be made prior to the vote by caucus-goers. In Iowa, at least, the caucuses also start writing that year’s party platform, something done by only the party elites in primary election states. Primary elections are examples of the top-down control over the party wielded by the party’s professional politicians.
The rise of primaries has destroyed both major parties, who, organizationally, are both near collapse.
If nominees are selected by popular vote (leaving aside the issue of who gets to vote for a moment), what is the function of party organizations? Why should parties exist at all?
If parties exist to promote specific ideas or programs, then why should voting by tangentially connected idiots be able to repeal those ideas or programs?
For example, if the Republican Party national organization is committed to reversal of Roe v. Wade, why should primary voters be allowed to choose a pro-choice candidate? They shouldn't, as I see it.
At MOST, these votes should be advisory in nature.
Or, if Presidential candidates are to be chosen by what is in effect a plebescite, then the electors (voters) should have to have some sort of actual connection (other than declaratory) to the party they are voting in.
I voted in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire this year, for example. How absurd is that?
Only moronic politicians could come up this primary, caucus system. This is the first time I have been involved in the nomination process, and for pure, unadulterated, pound-for-pound idiocy it is without rival. Dems and Pubs voting on different dates in different states? It is like it is all for free and doesn’t come out of the taxpayers pockets.
This doesn’t have to be hard. You put the names of the 50 states on 50 ping pong balls and put them in the hopper. You get the parties to agree on dates and draw the ping pong balls out for those dates. You do this every primary election. That eliminates the nonsense about trying to be first and certain states like NH and Iowa having more sway in elections than they rightly deserve.
There are 435 representatives, therefore 435 districts and 435 delegates. When the time comes for a state to vote, the votes are tallied by district and it is winner-take-all. You win that District, you win that delegate. All political parties vote on the chosen date in that state. There is no caucusing or super-delegates, the people vote and whomever gets the most votes in that district, gets that delegate. The candidate that gets the most delegates is obviously the nominee.
Perhaps this could eliminate the convoluted mess that we have now. Perhaps it might lead to better candidates and better nominees. Perhaps Americans would be more likely to get involved, knowing their vote won’t always be on the back end of every election, when the race has already been decided?
Most of those sound good, but I disagree strongly about caucuses vs primaries.
Primaries have much higher ‘turnout’, meaning they attract many more people who don’t pay much attention to politics and therefore vote based on what they hear from the MSM. Romney won all the caucus states except Iowa and West Virginia which went to Huckabee. All of McCain’s victories came from primary states.
Attending a caucus requires more effort than voting in a primary, thus the people who show up at a caucus are more likely to put more effort into politics in general and staying informed rather than just tuning into the MSM a few days before the election and voting based on that.