[KFriedConserv]

I like the idea of two small states getting the first crack a week apart. Perhaps two more diverse states could be chosen. Say South Carolina and Deleware. West Virginia would be a good one as well.

What I like is the focus on the canidates as they are forced to actually go out in public and shake hands and take questions. They are often forced to go unscripted.

A bunch of states on the same day means a quick stump speech and then flying off to a different state for another quick stump speech. The candidates and the media totally control the action.

[KFriedConserv]

I like the idea of two small states getting the first crack a week apart. Perhaps two more diverse states could be chosen. Say South Carolina and Deleware. West Virginia would be a good one as well.

What I like is the focus on the canidates as they are forced to actually go out in public and shake hands and take questions. They are often forced to go unscripted.

A bunch of states on the same day means a quick stump speech and then flying off to a different state for another quick stump speech. The candidates and the media totally control the action.

[Notasoccermom]

I think this plan has some merit. I feel excluded under the present system.

[WFTR]

The only real way to improve our election system is to improve the voting habits of the individual voters. The reason that Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence on the selection process is that too many people place too much emphasis on what happens there. People need to stand by their candidates past the first few primaries and not switch allegiances just because a candidate loses in Iowa and New Hampshire.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan lost quite a few states before the momentum changed. The best thing that could happen for the system is for John Kerry to win all but South Carolina on Tuesday but end up losing the nomination. If that happened, people would stop believing that Iowa and New Hampshire decide everything, and they would keep looking at the candidates and issues instead of the "horse race." The parties could also stop trying to decide the nominee before the primaries start and could instead let the primary system work to select the nominee.

Another Terri's Law
Bill

[sboyd]

Primaries and caucuses focus on giving one or two candidates momentum. They are not about issues or character. John Kerry became the anti-Dean candidate and that is the only reason for his success. Where are the principles? It is all about elect-ability. That is crap. Why can't the parties pay for their own primaries and have a date for it? Why should Iowa and New Hampshire decide who the candidate is going to be? The system in place now does not show the true feelings of both parties. I don't like it.

[Impy]

I agree the current primary system is profoundly retarded. I can't imagine why they don't fix it.

Joe Lieberman introduced a bill to do something similar to what you outlined and when called on at a New Hampshire debate he couldn't back away from it fast enough, disgusting.