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

To: Ramius

The real problem is with our primary system where a handful of states decide who our candidate will be before the rest ever get a chance to vote.

Personally I would go with 5 primary dates with 10 regionally diverse states voting on each date. It would still thin the field but give be a better representation of what we really want.


13 posted on 01/25/2012 6:03:42 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: cripplecreek

I agree. Out here in Washington for example, we don’t really get to have any say in the selection of our party’s candidate. A wider set of primaries, on just a few dates, would be better.


15 posted on 01/25/2012 6:11:51 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I'd give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek
Personally I would go with 5 primary dates with 10 regionally diverse states voting on each date. It would still thin the field but give be a better representation of what we really want.

The major drawback I see with that is it would favor the candidate with the deepest pockets even moreso than what we have now. By streaming the initial primaries one at a time a shoestring hopeful can bet it all early.

If his message resounds and he gets a strong early showing, support (and money) will likely start flowing and fund the next state in line. If not, then he's out of the way of those that were better received.

17 posted on 01/25/2012 6:18:14 PM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | 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