All state primaries on the same day

[minionofmidas]

First of all, the concept that delegates to the national political party convention should always be selected by primaries, is an idea with which I totally disagree.

Please note that the Democrat party purposefully has 'superdelegates' who are NOT selected in a primary for the express purpose of adding a little maturity to the process.

Second, a drawn out selection process for the nominee for a political party's nomination for President is a good thing, since it provides time for the voters to get a better perspective on the prospective candidates. 

Third, having the primaries spread over a period of time, diminishes the advantage of a candidate supported by the financiers of elections, and gives other candidates an opportunity to emerge based on factors such as: (1) message, (2) volunteer efforts, and (3) candidate qualities.

He has a point.
While the current system is pretty strange, a national primary, especially an early one, might well turn out worse.

[minionofmidas]

The best part is that they are small states.  They are the only chance that we have left for candidates for President to actually have to dirty their fingernails talking to real people and listening to real problems.  A national primary would only serve to infuse more of the problems that we have in the general election with money driving the game and tv ads replacing the stump speeches.

Iowa and New Hampshire is America's "nominating committee" and I am perfectly happy that those states have that very important role.

Don gave me an idea for cautious reform, actually. Only three states changed hands in 2004, and those include Iowa and New Hampshire, as he points out. One of the standard points of critique is that they're both smalltown, lily-white states - well, the third state to switch hands this year is the second least White in the Nation! New Mexico for first primary of the 2008 primary season!

[minionofmidas]

Okay, you want a comment on that idea...
While it's certainly not a bad idea, I don't think the effect would be large. They'll still buy TV ads etc as well.

[minionofmidas]

The effectiveness of money and television advertising is vastly overrated in the political process in America, particuarly in the circumstances I outlined.

Money and television advertising can be effective when opposing candidate(s) do not have recourse to the voters (i.e. a large constiuency when personal contact is effectively impossible) and one candidate has a major financial or media advantage.

There are numerous examples where the biggest spender in a race does NOT win if the competition has adequate resources, and a superior message/candidate.

Yes (in LA-3, the biggest spender up to the General election was David Romero, btw)...the questions are, though: How many people will read that booklet? How many people will find themselves sufficiently informed after reading it? If they see an attack ad about a candidate's stance on, say, abortion, will they just shrug it off and say: The booklet said otherwise? And how long before the election will they receive that booklet? Won't many of them already have made up their minds?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this would have a negative impact, I just don't think it would have a large impact either.
Most people don't vote on TV ads alone, of course, but rather fewer will vote on a government booklet alone.

[minionofmidas]

The effectiveness of money and television advertising is vastly overrated in the political process in America, particuarly in the circumstances I outlined.

Money and television advertising can be effective when opposing candidate(s) do not have recourse to the voters (i.e. a large constiuency when personal contact is effectively impossible) and one candidate has a major financial or media advantage.

There are numerous examples where the biggest spender in a race does NOT win if the competition has adequate resources, and a superior message/candidate.

Yes (in LA-3, the biggest spender up to the General election was David Romero, btw)...the questions are, though: How many people will read that booklet? How many people will find themselves sufficiently informed after reading it? If they see an attack ad about a candidate's stance on, say, abortion, will they just shrug it off and say: The booklet said otherwise? And how long before the election will they receive that booklet? Won't many of them already have made up their minds?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this would have a negative impact, I just don't think it would have a large impact either.
Most people don't vote on TV ads alone, of course, but rather fewer will vote on a government booklet alone.

First, no my suggestion of the phamplet is NOT a panacea, but it will (I base this on comparing states with and without this feature) have a signficant impact.

Second, it also seems to me that public television stations in a state should be required to provide each ballot qualified candidate (not write-ins) with X number of minutes in the weeks before the election.  While this would probably have even less impact than the phamplet, it seems to me to be a reasonable requirement to help offset big money and the lackeys of the liberal media.

We actually have that in Germany.