Community >> View Post
·
Post By
mtyoung

In Reply To
Omar Karindu

Subj: Re: US Primary Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:04:45 am EST (Viewed 2 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US Primary Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:55:15 am EST (Viewed 2 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?
> >
> > JWT
>
> 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.

Of course, the system you propose would tend to favor the (perceived as) more liberal East coast early on, and I suspect Republican primary voters west of the Mississippi might complain that more conservative candidates were being pushed out by the earlier primaries.

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey

> Of course, the system you propose would tend to favor the (perceived as) more liberal East coast early on, and I suspect Republican primary voters west of the Mississippi might complain that more conservative candidates were being pushed out by the earlier primaries.

So if a understand you right, you are saying that my proposal would pick more liberal candidates?

A key point is that the east coast isn't liberal, its the northeast. The southeast is conservative. Of the first primaries, you would have a mixture of both northern and southern states. Plus, this is just the primaries, so Republicans would only vote for Republicans.

Are you suggesting that the western Republicans are more conservative than the eastern (and southern) Republicans? I don't think thats true.

Are you saying that the degree to which a Republican is conservative can be generalized based on what state they live in? I don't think thats true.

I don't think that where a candidate is from matters that much in the primaries. The fact that McCain is from Arizona probably isn't that big of a deal. If you could measure someones political ideas from where they live then your statement would be true, but you can't. Most states are highly contested, with about 50% Dems and 50% Reps. Look at Colorado, 1.1 million voted for Bush, 1 million voted for Kerry. So if someone is from Colorado, would you say they are Republican or Democrat? You can't make an accurate guess there.

Also, it wouldn't strictly be a east to west schedule and you would have to jump around alot.

The states this would hurt the most are the midwest/rockies region states, since their primaries would be held last. But their primaries are already really insignificant and they don't have a high population. So if a candidate swept the earlier primaries and would win without those states might just skip them all together. But thats really what they do now. One way to fix this is to just make it a requirement that all viable candidates visit each state at least once.

And let me say, I just made that primary idea up on the spot, I'm sure there are flaws to the idea (like candidates ignoring the midwest/newest states). But I don't think you can say this idea is biased since there is so much diversity in order of the primaries.

I could be wrong.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 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