Community >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To

Subj: Re: US Primary Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:06:51 am EST
Reply Subj: Re: US Primary Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:14:08 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

> Is it only me or does everyone think the way the current primaries are held are not fair to every voter in the U.S.
> The current set up allows a few states to basicly determine who are running for President. I know a few states have tried to change election dates for this year, but that for the most part failed. So now not everyone has a fair chance to decide who they want to vote for.
> In my opinion the primaries should all be held at the same time in May that would allow time for everyone's vote to count unlike it does now.
> Does anyone else share this view?

Sure the primary system is severely flawed, but there is probably no system that is fair to every voter and to the candidates themselves. I think one strength to for the primary system is that is more fair to the candidates.

In a primary system, a candidate knows where he has to go, in what order, and where to spend his money. Candidates are competing for one (or a few) states at time, instead of all 50 states at once.

If you went to a single primary day for all states, the candidates would only spend time in the big states they think they can win (like New York, Flordia, Texas, California) ignoring the smaller states, and the states they don't think they would win anyway (like Democrats in the south, Republicans in the northeast). At least this way, the candidates have to actively go out and talk to more people then they really want to.

They would also have to spend alot more money in this system too. Right now, a smaller candidate can spend money in the first primary states, not win any states, and then quit. In a one day primary, he might have to raise more and therefore spend more money on a campaign that is still going to lose.

One way to fix this, is to still have the primaries on various days, but go in order of statehood. Therefore the first primaries would be first 5 states to enter the union, the second primaries would be the second 5 to enter the union and so on. This would allow primaries to be focused on states that are relatively close to each other in distance, and somewhat more diversified than the first primaries now. You would also see the general trend going from east to west, and finally ending in California. That way, a campaign can build momentum, but a 2nd place person could still come if first if he wins California, etc.

I hate the current primaries mostly because the voters from each early primary state are not really diversified and do not have high populations.

But any change to the primary system would be impossible in reality.

> They would also have to spend alot more money in this system too. Right now, a smaller candidate can spend money in the first primary states, not win any states, and then quit.

So you're saying that, as it exists, you don't have to spend much money to lose. But what about those who might actually win? In a one-day vote, they'd save a substantial amount of money, wouldn't they? And doesn't the prolonged voting process hurt the chances of legitimate candidates without massive war-chests?

neil's blog

Posted with Mozilla Firefox on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software