Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Dec 1, 2007.
Breaking right now on CNN:
Good. This one-upmanship game has gone far enough.
I'm fairly ignorant of this part of the election process. What does this mean for Michigan, other than the Dem candidates won't be here?
Ditto... I mean, I understand why the Democratic peoples did this, but what do delegates at the convention do? Do the vote kinda like our electoral college does in the general election?
I realize why they this did this and all, but it still seems stupid to me. I mean, it's probably just going to piss people off. And knowing them, while they get attacked for it, they won't say anything, so they'll be the bad guys. I just have a feeling this is just going to backfire on them.
As a resident of michigan I must stay:
Thought it was a bad idea for MI to move the primary up, its now confirmed though.
Our whole electoral system in the US is pretty crappy. There needs to be serious election reform. I'm not holding my breath though.
They could just hold them all on the same day so no one would be more important that anyone else.
That's my thought, too. I don't know why Iowa and New Hampshire should be given special influence. One of 'em even has that stupid state law that requires them to hold the first primary in the country. Just let 'em all have primaries at the same time. Problem solved.
As far as explaining the primary process...check out this, particularly the "Presidential primaries" section...and this, under "Nomination".
It's not about state importance. Remember this is the primary process which should allow candidates that might be known mostly in their own state or perhaps a region to become better known to voters of other states so that the party can eventually settle on the candidate that will have the best national appeal.
If this process isn't done in incremental steps, it would only allow candidates starting with national recognition and large sums of money to even contend.
That said, the states should rotate as to who are the earliest in the race so that it's fairer. It was the perception that largely populated states had little or no effect on the outcome of the primaries that caused this in the first place.
Thomas, i'm confused, but this seems to contradict your earlier post supporting the party's decision.
anyways, the all process is ridiculous and obsolete, in my opinion.
not only it is patently unfair, but it results in the needless dragging out of the campaigns for way too long, it usually ends up on focusing on irrelevant issues, and constitutes a monstrous waste of resources.
It also increases the parties' power and feeds the media circus, so i imagine its here to stay.
a rotation like swarm proposes would be a decent patch, but i think that the best thing would be to have a single day, or alternatively concentrate all of them in 4 consecutive weekends, 10-15 states at a time, starting with the less populous and moving up: 15 the first weekend (~5% population), 15 the second (~20%), 10 the third (~20%) and the last ten (>50%), including california, texas, new york and florida on the concluding day.
I agree completely with swarmlord on this one. The primaries need to be spaced out so that candidates without major backing can afford to focus their campaigns in a few states instead of having to campaign over the entire country at the same time. But the first state to vote each year should be different.