posted
From what I can tell, it looks like the actual schedule is based on state law and tradition. NH, it seems, has a state law that their primary must be the first one. This seems pretty goofy to me. What if another state passed as state law. Civil war? Just goofy.
Another bizarre result of the difference between a group of states all jealous of their rights and powers and a nation.
It seems that the best solution for the nation as a whole that still respects the little states would be to hold primaries of the smaller states earlier and the larger states later.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "respect" I mean, "don't make them entirely irrelevant". I think as long as we have the electoral college and most states are "winner take all" with their electoral votes, having the states with fewer electoral votes go early means that it is a bit more balanced. Otherwise, we would just hold the California, Texas, New York, and Florida primaries first and the people in those states would pick the president for all of us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm Canadian, so I don't particularly get this primary thing. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), is a primary the equivalent of a Canadian leadership convention where members of the party pick a leader for the party, except that ordinary citizens of a state are also allowed to vote for the leader?
If so, is there any particular reason why they couldn't just hold one vote in all states at the same time rather than drawing it out and having different votes in different states and having each state bicker about who can go first?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah. That would make sense. It's certainly not a new idea. But it's apparently difficult to actually bring about change when everyone distrusts everyone else.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parties are resistant to a one-day primary because campaigning is so expensive and it would be more expensive to campaign in the whole country at the same time. Also, people couldn't be in more than one place at a time. Again, this would lead to politicians spending all their time and money on the "big" states.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't be opposed to five or six elections, defined by region, where one state from each region gets to have their primary first, and that seat moves from year to year.
That might not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than the status quo.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wouldn't be opposed to five or six elections, defined by region, where one state from each region gets to have their primary first, and that seat moves from year to year.
That might not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than the status quo.
Indeed that might not be perfect, but the system that is in place is embarrassingly bad.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
