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

Of course, this is mostly a pipe dream since the only way this would ever be possible would be to get Congress (by definition an entire body of political candidates) to agree to restrain themselves. And when has Congress ever restrained themselves?

But the alternative is having the 2012 primaries begin in October, 2011. That's where this is all heading if the madness is not stopped.

1 posted on 05/24/2003 11:49:53 AM PDT by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Tall_Texan
Or maybe everyone should vote online like they do for "American Idol".
2 posted on 05/24/2003 11:50:51 AM PDT by Tall_Texan (The two greatest secrets to success: 1 - Don't tell them everything you know. 2 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tall_Texan
I think that it is strictly the business of the states and not the Feds.
3 posted on 05/24/2003 11:53:03 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tall_Texan
The answer to your main question is that the delegates (like the electoral college) are at the convention to cast ballots-- which provides the check you ask about. None are required to be faithful-- just like the electoral college.
8 posted on 05/24/2003 12:33:32 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tall_Texan
I don't think the feds should have anything to do with this process.

It is up to the individual states.
11 posted on 05/24/2003 12:50:55 PM PDT by shred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tall_Texan
If I had the power, I'd pass a law to prevent presidential primaries and binding caucuses from taking place before April 15th of that election year.

I do like the idea of requiring all primaries to be on April 15, it would be difficult to argue for raising taxes on that date.

Seriously, the federal government doesn't have to anything about it. I would prefer the parties to take action instead. The parties already do some things that could be applicable to primary reform.

Unlike the US House of Representatives, the state delegations to the party conventions are not strictly allocated proportionally to population. States that historically vote for a particular party's nominees, are rewarded with larger delegations than states that routinely vote against the party's nominees for President, Congress, Senate, etc. In the Republican Party, Texas gets a larger delegation proportionally to population than California, New York, or Massachussetts. One or both of the political parties could reward states with later primaries with larger delegations. This would mean a state would find its own self interest may lie in having its primary or convention later rather than sooner.

13 posted on 05/24/2003 1:37:01 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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