Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
Does anybody have a problem with these relatively insignificant states (no offense to the natives) with tiny populations always getting the power to basically decide the frontrunners for both parties? Doesn't this tradition seem a little screwy?
|
Yes, but then again, I wouldn't want California and New York picking my presidential candidates, either.
There have actually been some ideas to change the primary process. One is to divide the country into Regions (example: Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Midwest, etc.) and then rotate who goes first. So, if the Southwest went first in 2008, the Midwest would go first in 2012, etc..
Another is to have all of the small states go early, followed by the medium states, followed by the big states. That one was called the Delaware Plan.
17 States, territories and the District of Columbia would hold primaries in February. Another group of slightly bigger states would vote in March, another in April. And the biggest states would wait until May with the premise that it's decided at the end by the larger states, "gives the smaller states an opportunity to participate with candidates and it gives the candidates an opportunity to go to those states and they don't need a large war chest to go into those states." (Delaware GOP Chairman)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
