A Better Primary System?

Vanity | rwrcpa1

[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.

[kevkrom]

The only problem I see is that I believe most states have both parties primaries on the same day.

There's a lot of reform that needs to go into the system. Letting the parties run their own primaries is one big part of it -- even if it means the parties have to pay for it themselves. (And really, why shouldn't they have to?)

[CharlieOK1]

You have hit on something I have been thinking about for a long time. I have emailed Rush about it on numerous occassions, with no response. As long as the current primary system is in place, we will end up with candidates like Mittens, Huckster, or Pawlenty.

[Spirochete]

Have them all nationwide on the same day, just like the general elections.

[Spirochete]

Absolutely not. That will ensure that only megabucks candidates ever get a shot.

Pretty much the way it works now, except only with liberal megabucks candidates.

[Keith in Iowa]

>>>>Do it the right way, all primaries on one day.

No primaries at all. Let parties pick their candidates at national party conventions.

[Beagle8U]

I posted the following a couple days ago. It is how I would handle the Republican primaries...

“1) Demand that ANY primaries OTHER THAN a closed primary, be considered nothing more than a ‘straw poll’ that doesn’t have bearing on the nomination of candidates for Federal Gov office. A caucus or open primary in any state will count for nothing, and NO candidates so chosen shall be deemed a nominated candidate for office.
2) The dates of primaries shall be determined by the % of total votes for the Republican POTUS candidate in the previous election, with the highest % having the first Republican primary or be in the first group of primaries, if said primaries should fall on the same date.
( Sorry $hithole blue states, you are LAST on the list, and Iowa and other Caucus joke states, YOU don’t even count!)”

[campaignPete R-CT]

Hands off the caucus system!

[ArmedConservative]

New Hampshire law stipulates (in section RSA 653:9 of the statute book) that the New Hampshire primary will take place at least seven days before any “similar election” in any other state.

The Iowa caucuses are not considered to be a similar election. In recent election cycles, the New Hampshire primary has taken place the week after the Iowa caucus.

[Beagle8U]

You can still have your silly assed caucus, it will be counted as a ‘straw poll’, meaning nothing at all.

[Vigilanteman]

Correct. Both states consider themselves the center of the political universe. Iowa is full of social conservatives who love government pork like ethanol subsidies. New Hampshire is full of economic conservatives who think social conservatives are a bunch of hayseed rubes. The former is tailor-made for Huckabee. The later is tailor-made for Romney.

Both have an inordinate influence in the primary system and neither has a history of being particularly loyal to the primary winners in the general election.

Part of the problem is that the sheeple greatly overrate the electoral importance of these states, albeit with a lot of help from the hype of the mainstream media.

That is why I see the only real solution as reforming the delegate allocation formulas to give more weight to states which hold their primary and caucus dates later. At some point, you would see an equilibrium when states stop jockeying for early dates.

[HighlyOpinionated]

I agree with this, even though I don’t have to register here in GA as R/D/I.

Closed Primaries are the way to go. It’ll cause more States to reconsider their open Primary policy.

I’m moving to Alabama soon, and I think theirs is a closed system.

[NC28203]

I think one of the advantages of these smaller states leading the way is that it allows someone without a lot of name recognition and dollars to still be competitive for a time. If you went to large regional primaries, the candidate with the most cash early would likely be nominee since they could afford the ait rime. Remember, in late 2007, Rudy Giuliani scored very well in national polling and had a lot of money at his disposal.

[fml]

He deserves every penny :)

[surely_you_jest]

The primary system as we have it today is as a result of George McGovern having a hissy fit back in the sixties.

The primary system as it exists today is no better than the “smoke filled rooms” of days gone by and, arguably, is a lot worse.

Having lived through both - the smoke filled rooms were better. And generally resulted in better candidates.

[southernnorthcarolina]

Why couldn't the primary system be changed to where there were regional primaries?

Who would you suggest implement such a change?

As I'm sure you know, the selection of candidates of various parties isn't addressed by the Constitution. The Republican Party could chose its nominee with tarot cards, as far as the Constitution is concerned.

So your complaint is, I assume, directed at the national political parties. Even there, there are difficulties, likely intractable ones. Primary dates, or caucus dates, or state convention dates, and their methodology, or the decision to have none of the above, are generally determined by each state legislature. Certainly, the national parties can and do exert pressure on the various state legislatures to set dates consistent with their strategic goals, even going so far as to refuse to accept the primary results of a state, but the fact is that the legislators of the 50 states will do as they please.

I would resectfully suggest you crusade for a more readily achievable goal -- Mideast peace, say, or that long-awaited Los Angeles to Honolulu bridge.

[Kevmo]

___________________________________________________________________

Here’s how I think primaries should be organized:

My suggestion is basically to hold the first primary in the state that has the highest percentage of GOP votes in the last election, the 2nd primary in the 2nd highest, and so on. 2 primaries a week for 25 weeks, with the last primaries being the suckup-to-the-democrats. And the democrats could easily have their primary schedule the same way, if they wanted.

This way, if a state is 60% republican, there is still incentive for them to get out the vote for 61% republican so they can bump up their state in the primary schedule.

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.

18 posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:55:08 AM by Kevmo (We need to get rid of the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party. ~Duncan Hunter) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962610/posts?page=18#18

Second thing is the order of the primaries should be determined by the percentage of republicans in the last vote. The higher the %pubbie, the sooner the state appears on the primary schedule, with a mix of big & little states and our staunchest republican states get to go FIRST. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965735/posts?page=862#862

24 posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 8:52:29 PM by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2332420/posts?page=24#24

___________________________________________________________________

[rwrcpa1]

I was thinking of a more achievable goal, like getting San Francisco to be a conservative city. :)

I realize it would have to be a coordinated effort among the states because the Feds don’t control the primary process. I don’t know how that would happen, but it would be nice if it could.

Texas is an open primary state. You’ve never seen so many people cross over to the dark side and vote for Hillary Clinton in Operation Chaos at our precint. It was very obvious what people were doing and was hilarious. I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.