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.
Now that primary season is almost over, what reforms would you suggest for the system?
I've never liked having states hold primaries in April, May or June. I really can't see a reason for this, it's basically telling the people who live in those states that their votes don't count (except this year, of course). And, in situations like we had this year it drags the contest on too long.
I like the idea of having Super Tuesdays. I'd like to see a series of ten Super Tuesdays, each one with 5 states. Each Super Tuesday should include a "key" state and a few "small" states. All the primaries should be held during a ten week span (mid Jan to the end of March).
Now that primary season is almost over, what reforms would you suggest for the dnc nominating system?
I've never liked having states hold primaries in April, May or June. I really can't see a reason for this, it's basically telling the people who live in those states that their votes don't count (except this year, of course). And, in situations like we had this year it drags the contest on too long.
I like the idea of having Super Tuesdays. I'd like to see a series of ten Super Tuesdays, each one with 5 states. Each Super Tuesday should include a "key" state and a few "small" states. All the primaries should be held during a ten week span (mid Jan to the end of March).
Maybe it's time to resurrect this question. Do you think the system needs an overhaul? And if so, what changes would you like to see?
I like the idea of having Super Tuesdays. I'd like to see a series of ten Super Tuesdays, each one with 5 states. Each Super Tuesday should include a "key" state and a few "small" states. All the primaries should be held during a ten week span (mid Jan to the end of March).
The fewer primary dates you have, the more effectively you shut out smaller, less funded candidates. The Romneys and the Rudys would be the only ones who can afford to campaign on such a large scale.
Actually, I believe the Super Tuesday campaigns were less expensive than it would have been to campaign in each one of those states separately.
Combining the mid-atlantic states was a classic example. Less travel and advertising expenses when they campaigned in neighboring states at the same time.
1. Well, for one, you Democrats need to tell the DNC elites to take a hike on the idea of "super delegates." That system is flat out telling you they don't trust the people to pick a candidate --- they want to give party elites the power to override the majority. And the super delegates are being strong armed in this year's primary to go with a particular candidate. So much for the little people. On the other hand, rules are rules. If Michigan/Florida get to participate, why bother to have rules at all?
2. New Hampshire and Iowa are only "special" to people who live there. It's ridiculous that people in two states have so much sway over who the candidates will be in most presidential election years.
3. Caucuses-schmaucuses.
4. I want to know before I vote in the primary who the VP will be. It's ridiculous that the person who is one heartbeat away from the presidency could just be some ******* governor/congressman from a state the presidential candidate wants to carry or who has photos of the presidential candidate dancing with a lampshade on his head at the last RNC/DNC Christmas party.
5. Too many stupid, uninfomative TV ads. Too many repetitive debates.
So my Primary System ---
1. Eliminates super delicates, er delegates, but not in The Sopranos kind of way.
2. Everybody plays by the rules or they don't play.
3. Primary voting is done regionally (northeast, mid-atlantic, southeast, southwest, west, midwest,) and which region goes first is rotated but the votes are still tabulated by state, not region. Each candidate gets 2 months to campaign in each of the 6 regions making the primary season one year. It's up to the candidates when they want to squeeze in the time to campaign in non-states (ex: Puerto Rico, Guam, etc) but non-states will always go last in the rotation.
4. Everybody votes using the same system --- either they're all caucuses or they're all freestyle (it can be put on the ballot in the general election).
5. The candidates and their vice presidential choice, campaign as a team during the primaries.
6. You get 2 TV ads per region, X number of minutes long, and they only air one week before the primary is scheduled in that region a set X number of times and those 2 TV ads are paid for by the DNC/RNC or candidate, no special interest groups (who are free to use the Internet). Each region has one nationally televised debate per party, within 1 week before the region votes. At least one of the moderators for each party's debate must be regional media and regional issues must be X% of the questions.
I've never liked having states hold primaries in April, May or June. I really can't see a reason for this, it's basically telling the people who live in those states that their votes don't count (except this year, of course).
Quote:
Originally Posted by normie
Actually, I believe the Super Tuesday campaigns were less expensive than it would have been to campaign in each one of those states separately.
Combining the mid-atlantic states was a classic example. Less travel and advertising expenses when they campaigned in neighboring states at the same time.
Speaking as a resident of one of those states where usually our "votes don't count" [The SD primary is coming on Tuesday] I'm not so sure about this. In past elections where the nomination gets sewed up early courtesy of big states early on, it's true that the likelihood of anybody seeing a presidential candidate out here was just about zero. Keep in mind that neighboring states [IA in particular and also NE and MN] have many more delegates and electoral votes so even in a regional "super primary" we'll get ignored. At least this time we get to see a few folks in person. Bill Clinton was in town stumping for Hillary on Friday and Barack Obama is due to be here this afternoon down at the Corn Palace.
Yes, campaigns are long and expensive - but maybe that's OK. Consider that in this election at least the Democrats have had to present themselves to nearly everybody. I appreciate the fact that this year I'll get a chance to see and hear the candidates in person. Usually out in the hinterlands the only contact we have is through the news media filters and the candidate's spin doctors. Separate contests on separate dates assure that voters have a chance to meet the real McCoy. Now, that said, I'm not a Democrat. But that doesn't mean I will not vote for another party's candidate in the general election. It's very important to me that I get to see BOTH party's candidates in the primary cycle so I can start my decision making process for the general election. We know we'll never see the Republican candidate out here - he's got it locked up and it's assumed SD will always vote Republican. So in the long run, a drawn out primary battle will, in my opinion anyway, help the battling party - folks will know the final nominee much better. Remember this also comes from somebody who has a party affiliation as a matter of necessity - not as a matter of party loyalty! If somebody is going to be a partyline voter this discussion is probably a bit off the mark.
Geez...sorry for the long explication.
I guess I worked myself into a contrarian perspective - maybe the system seems broken and cumbersome, but maybe it really does serve a good purpose. Should we be figuring out a way to keep the candidate selection process for both parties going longer? That might prepare the electorate for more informed decisions in November...HMMMMMM.
It will ahve to be sate by state. I thnik we will see Iowa and new hamshire which causeed this mess with thair two week before any other primary state law get changed if anyhting. Here in Texas I woudl like the two vote system of voting at the ballot box then in a caucus be eliminate. It gives peole who have time to stayup late and nothing to do two votes while most only have time to vote once.It also is so poorly organized in any but very low popualtion areas.Actually I had never heard of anyone voting untill this year in the caucus.If they don't change then I think more will jsut forget primary voting unless there are alot of local candidates.That why manu vote really because they don't feel their votes mean much most years.
Don't you think a shortened primary season would cut off the funding spigot? As a donor I can give 25 a month to various concerns, but if I had to come up with 150 at the outset, I would be less likely to contribute, thus only the wealthy would have a voice again.
They should have it all at once, not this state by state stuff. If someone is too stupid to come to an educated decision about a candidate unless they actually come to their state then I wouldn't want them to vote anyway.
But it is their party, they can choose anyway they want to run it.
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.
