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.
again, if you do that then candidates will treat it like the general election and just focus and only spend money in a few key states and ignore the rest.
the vetting process shoud be long. We need to do it by region, 8 states or so at a time.
Yes, I would support your system as well. With the caveat that the order of timing rotate every cycle. Part of the problem is that undue attention is paid to the first primaries.
Political party primaries should not be held at the time of the general election. You will end up with multiple political parties running many candidates. As no candidate is likely to have a majority vote, you have a nationwide runoff after the general election. This system would make the electoral college useless.
Political parties should determine their candidate for an office ahead of the general election.
Political party primaries should not be held at the time of the general election. You will end up with multiple political parties running many candidates. As no candidate is likely to have a majority vote, you have a nationwide runoff after the general election. This system would make the electoral college useless.
Political parties should determine their candidate for an office ahead of the general election.
??????? The discussion here is whether all primaries should be held on the same day. Not whether the primaries and the general should be on the same day.
I voted “other†because I don’t think there should be primaries at all. What I mean by that is that I don’t think the federal government or any of the states should facilitate the selection process used by political parties to determine their candidates.
The Republican and Democratic political parties are both private entities. Those political parties, as well as other parties, should certainly be free to select candidates via primaries, caucuses, numbers drawn from a hat, or any other method they choose. — completely at their own expense.
However, it shouldn’t be the role of the federal, state, or local governments to provide venues, machinery, or logistics for the internal selection processes of private political parties.
How? The media keeps saying they give influence but I don't understand how... do people in another state vote based on what another state says? That seems a little dumb for people to do...
Momentum influences who comes out to vote and who gets funding.
By the time the Republican primaries were held in New York and California, pretty much everyone but Trump had already been eliminated. Just those two states total about 8 million registered Republicans who never got the same options that voters from Iowa and New Hampshire had to choose from.
Throw in all the other states that voted afterwards and how many other moderate Republicans never had the opportunity to let their preference count?
I could go for it if you had something like three rounds- total field in election 1 winnowed down to 4. Then a second election to winnow it down to 2. Then the final to pick a candidate.
If you simply throw them all on the ballot and someone has the potential to win the whole shebang with 20-30% of the vote because of vote splits I think its unfair to the majority.
No. I don't think they should be held on the same day.
But I do think they should take the importance of Iowa & NH out of it.
For once I agree with you Waldo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.