Do you think the primaries for all states should be done on the same day just like the general election? (voters, campaign)
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.
Yes, the current system gives Iowa and New Hampshire far too much influence over who gets the nomination for either party, and the states with later primaries have virtually no say.
Yes, the current system gives Iowa and New Hampshire far too much influence over who gets the nomination for either party, and the states with later primaries have virtually no say.
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...
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...
Well the media is actually responsible for the influence those states have. Those races get tons of coverage and spin. And we, the people, in turn get influenced by that coverage and spin, hearing it and forming opinions on it. Maybe we don't vote for the person we want to, because we'd prefer our vote to go to the person more likely to beat the candidate we don't want representing the party. An opinion formed based on the coverage of the primary elections.
Because of the profit motive of news corporations, it's in their best interests to turn every election into a horse race and tell all kinds of stories and spin on every single development. Perhaps losing in Iowa might not be a big deal, but then the media tells you all about "what a crushing defeat" candidate A suffered in Iowa, and starts telling their stories about why it happened, and "can he come back". Then, the narrative that Candidate A is struggling to connect with voters becomes true, because people will accept a narrative when it just keeps getting piled on by different news outlets. And god forbid Candidate A wins both New Hampshire and Iowa, that's the fast track to becoming the anointed one.
Explain. Doesn't matter, I just don't see it as really mattering one way or the other. One either thinks for themselves and makes informed decisions or they attach themselves to a particular herd and just go along for the ride!
I voted against. The only way that a single national primary would make sense would be if we had a European type of election where the primary would be closely followed by the national election.
NO........They should do it by regions, so all the candidates go in person to each of those states and campaigns. If you do the primaries as national elections, then the candidates will focus on a few key states and ignore the rest.
they should do it by a 8 states region primaries at a time.
NO........They should do it by regions, so all the candidates go in person to each of those states and campaigns. If you do the primaries as national elections, then the candidates will focus on a few key states and ignore the rest.
they should do it by a 8 states region primaries at a time.
I change my mind --I vote Hellion's idea.
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.
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.
