I think it is a mistake that we have allowed the notion to prevail that only those with law degrees or "C" level executive experience need apply and then that you should make your politics your entire career, in which case, your upward progression is dependent upon how many favors you can give and how many palms you can grease on the way up.
The establishment have created these rules to keep regular people out of the process and as a result, we have political cronyism in place - an entire class of people who have no issue imposing socialism on the rest of us because they know that they will be part of the protected class that gets to make all the rules for everybody else.
Perfect case in point is this Obama socialized medicine. It's good enough for us rabble but note that government workers have their own health care system which is far superior to what anybody has in the private sector. In fact, you would see Obama-Care repealed on Monday morning if it were to be imposed upon congressmen today.
As for Palin, I would have voted for her. I spent all last summer boosting her candidacy and I was 95% sure (at this time last year) that she was running. I think had she run, none of us would be talking about Mitt Romney today as I think Palin would have won this going away. However, I think the liberal media would have launched a smear campaign against her the likes we have never seen. The liberals are not as threatened by Romney (but they may be in for a surprise). At any rate, I think a Palin vs Obama race in November would have united the conservatives and we would prevail - though it would have been much uglier.
Lastly, totally agree on the flawed process. In a nutshell, this is the remedy I have been proposing:
Hold THREE national primary elections (actually three sets of 50-state primary elections).
The first set of state primaries to be held in February. Only those with 15% of the state vote move on. (This should weed out the fringe candidates and the pretenders.) No delegates to be awarded in this first run-off.
Hold a second set of primaries around the April timeframe. In these primaries, 50% of the available delegates are awarded on a proportional basis. In this manner, we should narrow the field to 2-3 finalists as those with lesser delegates will run out of money and drop out.
The third and final set of primaries to be held in June. The remaining 50% of delegates to be awarded in each state on a proportional basis.
The candidates will then take those delegates to their respective conventions in which a nominee will be chosen to represent their party in the November elections.
Let me mention one more thing. These primaries must be CLOSED to party members only. So if you are a registered Republican, you have no business voting in a Democrat primary - and vice versa. If you are registered Independent, sorry, you don't get to vote in a primary. Unless you want to register as a Republican or a Democrat, or a third party (such as the Libertarians), you have no business selecting a party nominee. (You may vote as you choose in the general however.)
In this manner, all citizens who belong to a political party will have an equal say in who their party's nominee will be.
I'm open to ideas of a better way but that's my best effort so far.
I don’t think our Founding Fathers would be happy at all with the spectacle of our country today. Ben Franklin probably might not be surprised, but still disappointed. Of course, when serving in national office at the time (let’s use 1789 as a baseline), this was a country of under 4 million people and mostly agrarian in nature (more like a large state in area by comparison today but with a small population). Serving in Congress then, you could personally know your member, and there’s a good chance you would’ve either taken a meal or sat down to drinks with them, either at a local tavern or at their home. Now ? It’s largely impossible when a single House member has to represent what is coming up on a million people (look at Montana). Senators, it’s even worse.
Even the legislature. Back then, you would’ve personally known virtually every person in your constituency, and in some cases, you’d cast your vote for a candidate right out in the open (and there’s a good chance if you were respected enough, you’d have been drafted to run and expected to serve). Now ? Some state legislative members represent more people now than entire members of Congress did 200 years ago. Even my member on a city council represents at or around 15,000 people (and that’s with a 40-member body !). You’re lucky to make contact with a fraction of that number, nevermind there’s no way to personally know all those voters.
Of course, what’s the alternative ? If we go Constitutionally on the number of federal legislators as it specified, it would swell to, what, over 10,000 members ? Forgive me, I recall calculating the exact figure, which escapes me. Sure, you’d have members closer to their constituents, but such a body would be a nightmare in action. Of course, one would say nothing could get done (and that might be a positive), but it would be too unwieldly in organization.
Of course, it might be interesting to see what it would look like in action, if only from an academic standpoint. It might turn out to be better, so long as in electing all those people we eliminated the bureaucratic army in DC that has been out of control for so long (btw, I actually favor eliminating civil service and return to the old standard of patronage. This is simply because that aforementioned army is a permanent political liberal Democrat class that remains with administration after administration, and when Republicans get in, they work mightily to undermine them and they’re almost impossible to remove. A return to patronage means that you bring all your people in, all the way down to janitor, they’re in for 2 years or 4 years or 6 or 8 (tops) and then everybody’s out and replaced by the succeeding party or candidate. Not without its downsides, but after more than about 130 years of it, we can see what a mess it has become).
Your primary idea is interesting. I think mine was revolving groups of states, with the most Republican ones going first and the least GOP last (DC & Hawaii, of which both should have zero impact on the GOP choice — the latter I favor cutting loose as a state, so long as we secure permanent access to our bases. DC should be retroceded to Maryland, which is already a cesspool).
Closed primaries, yes absolutely. Having Democrats come in and choose nominees in close races (be it President or on down) has got to stop. I’ll add in another controversial notion I make no apologies for — raising the voting age back up to 21. Brainwashed schoolchildren in college have no business casting votes, and most of those do so where they go to school (where they have no vested long-term interest in that given community), and that has to stop. The sole exception to that is 18-21 military. You’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to vote (and drink — lower the age back to 18. I’d rather college students get drunk than vote, anyhow). ;-)