Posted on 12/02/2010 10:00:19 AM PST by rwrcpa1
Is anyone else here irritated that the small states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and North Carolina basically get to choose our nominee for us? By the time we have our primary in Texas, all of the candidates have dropped out except for the guy whose turn it is, ie Juan McCain.
Why couldn't the primary system be changed to where there were regional primaries? Divide the country into geographical regions. Each geographical region could take their turn being first every four years. The next time it would be last.
Northeast- From Maine south to Virginia, west to West Virginia and Pennsylvania 135 electoral votes
South- North Carolina south to Florida, all the gulf states, Arkansas and Oklahoma 136 electoral votes
Midwest-Ohio south to Tennessee, west to Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas 143 electoral votes
West - Montana south to New Mexico, and all states West, including Alaska and Hawaii. 124 electoral votes
538 votes total (2008 electoral map)
Each region has large states:
Northeast - New York and Pennsylvania South - Florida and Texas Midwest-Illinois and Ohio West - California
Start the primaries March 1 and have one every 6 weeks. The last primary would be 8/15 just in time for the conventions.
Infinitely more fair to the states than the current system.
This is in the hands of the party leadership. Since they do not through down the gauntlet on each state’s party leadership from leapfrogging over other states, we get very liberal candidates with big leads that are hard to overcome. This is one reason why we keep getting RINOs as the nominees as of late.
Yeah, that is my point.
If the political parties wanted to erase this advantage, all they would need to do is create a formula which awards states more delegates for holding their primary or caucus dates later. Don't hold your breath on that happening.
How annoying that the author does not even know the three states in question. It is Iowa, New Hampshire and SOUTH Carolina. STUPID JOURNOLIST!!! I am sick and tired of these dumb a$$es getting paid big bucks for being stupid.
I’ve in the past proposed a different system that I think would be more effective. The actual quantitative measures would need to be hammered out by people with a lot more experience and data than I have, but the basic idea is:
1) Republican candidates should be chosen by “Republican” states, and more so, states that are “actively Republican”. This means devising a metric to ranks states by the relative rise and fall of the strength of Republicans in that state over recent election cycles. The most “trending Republican” states would get the earliest primary/caucus dates.
2) The earliest primary or caucus should always be a smaller state. This would allow candidates without humongous bankrolls to at least have a chance at being competitive early on, which can seed the necessary funding for later. A large state should be in play early, to show the ability of a candidate to demonstrate strength and efficiency of organization.
3) The first few primaries/caucuses should be as geographically diverse as possible, ensuring that candidates have to address a relatively wide base of the country.
4) No “open primaries”. Primaries are for registered GOP members only; any state that prevents this goes to the back of the line for scheduling.
Open primaries suck too. I don’t want registered DemonRats selecting the candidate.
I’m not.
The only way to get this changed is if some of the larger states, such as California, Texas and Florida forced a change. The west and the south hold 50% of the electoral vote. Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina hold 6 of the electoral vote.
I know the primary system is up to each state, so I don’t know how this could ever be accomplished. But it would be more fair.
How much do you get paid for posting rude and uninformed comments?
Do it the right way, all primaries on one day.
Hey, naps, this is a vanity post. I couldn’t remember if it was north or south. South is even worse, it has only 8 votes versus 15 for North.
And you misspelled journalist. That’s two for you and one for me.
I second that.
Your idea has merit. The only problem I see is that I believe most states have both parties primaries on the same day.
Absolutely not. That will ensure that only megabucks candidates ever get a shot.
Do all the primaries on the same day-—just like the election.
That would stop all the back-door dealing, also.
Hold them all on 2nd Tuesday of August.
No ‘early voting’. No games.
I’ll bet he gets paid double what I got paid for starting the post.
The 2008 convention proposed an “Ohio Plan”, consisting of three primary dates: one for the “traditional” beginners like Iowa and NH; one for small states, then one for big states.
The plan wasn’t adopted. I’m not sure of its merits, but it has to be better than the current system that encourages a media coronation after South Carolina.
Be sure Texas would vote for the same candidates as New Hampshire!
This is how the "elites" stay in charge. It will only change when people get involved in the party politics from the precinct up choosing the state delegates and having input as to when the primaries are held.
The "country clubbers" are in charge in Texas...at least the last time I went to a state convention... about 12 years ago. They are the group thinkers with Barbara Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.