Earlier Primaries

I have a better idea. Send both parties, their cronies, the lobbiest that beg at their feet, and all the politicians, put them on a remote island, and start over.

 

I like this plan:

www.nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=210

 

Does any other country have primary elections? The USofA origionally did not. Why do we need a national primary election? Let the parties pick and pay.

 

If I remember my high school civics, primaries were developed in order to give smaller states with smaller population a chance to experience presidential campaigns that would otherwise ignore them. They are sort of a counter balance to the electoral college. New Hampshire law, for example, states that they must hold their primary election at least seven days prior to that of any other state to guarantee that they are first, and they get an opportunity to experience campaigning that they would not otherwise experience because they have only four electoral votes.

With the campaigning beginning so ridiculously early this time around, I wouldn't be surprised if there were not some big surprises in the primaries.

 

I think most countries have runoffs with the top two vote getters than running against each other.

This primary stuff has become silly. Everyone is trying to vote before things are decided. The only way it will work is probably to have a national primary day where everyone votes on the same day, and can only vote in one party for one person. The top vote getter from each party then runs in the general election. Have the primary sometime in March, like Super Tuesday used to be.

 

Regional primaries would be better. The presidential nomination has historically been one that winnowed the field over a period of months of primaries as in 1976 when the Reagan-Ford and Carter-Udall nomination races from January through May were great political theatre.

 

I think regional primaries contains the same problem. The race is over before some people vote.

 

Two problems I see with a national primary:

1) It basically reduces the race down to whomever can raise the most money/has the highest name recognition. There would be no chance for a lesser known candidate to work his way up through the pack.

2) You could end up with the "winner" and party nominee receiving only 20-25% of the vote. I think there would at least have to be a run-off between the top two in votes received to give the party nominee any credibility at all.

 

To some degree, but the alternative problem is that a couple of weeks in, those lesser names who didn't do well are out anyway.

Yes, have a party run off and then the national election. I have no issue with that.

I just think that the current system, particularly now, is so messed up it tilts the field towards those who can raise money early and get name recognition early.

Look at it now: It is not a campaign of ideas, but names. Hillary, Obama, Rudy, John, etc aren't leading because their ideas have been pounded, refined, processed, examined. They are running because of their name recognition.

 

It is probably unConstitutional, but it would be great if a law were passed not allowing campaigning for the primaries until January 2008, and after all the primaries, no campaigning for the general election until Labor Day 2008.