I think this is how parties should nominate candidates for Prez.

[P.J. McDuff]

Am I the only one who thinks that Presidential candidates should be selected by who tells the best "Yo Mama" joke? I think a President Murphy or President Chapelle would be an intriguing and beneficial step for the country to take.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

The parties should go back to the good old days when the party bosses in smoke filled rooms picked the candidates.

Ah, for the good old days, when a party goes into the convention and the delegates cannot agree on a candidate, and it takes 47 smokey, sweaty, fist flying, cross word exchanging ballots to pick a candidate, a dark horse that hardly anybody had heard of, let alone thought of.

Bring back the drama, the excitement, the tension, the uncertainty, the floor fights and the undemocratic bruhaha of yesteryear.

I doesn't get any better than that. 

[Southern Patriot]

I agree with Winfield, after all that's how the "Minor" Parties do it.
Better yet, let's just have one election with everyone on the ballot, choose the electors independently of one another (as opposed to Winner-take-all or Congressional) and be confused for two months on who is gonna be the next President.
California gets 55 EV, people in Cali vote for 55 individual electors, top 55 vote getters are the States Electors. etc for every State

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARLHAYDEN, i definitely think your idea is a fresh and very good one, but there might be a couple problems.  though i love the congressional district idea, most states that have few districts (think plains states or states like new hampshire) don't have much in the way of minorities, and often tend to be more conservative.  liberals and minorities might not like that idea.  secondly, residents of the biggest states would definitely complain if you force them to wait until the very end of the primary season, california would be the only state ineligible to hold a primary before june.  but with a little tinkering, i think that plan could definitely be successful. 

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you on this.

The reason for giving the small states priority is that it reduces the effectiveness of money and media support, and gives the voters a chance to actually vet the candidates.

I still sympathize with Hubert Humphrey who compained in 1960 that he simply cound't compete with Jack's 'jack' (money).

[Verily]

I say do 5 primaries per Tuesday for 11 consecutive weeks.  Divide the states into 5 groups by regions of country and take one per each group each week.  Rotate so each state gets a chance each year to be first.

What regions would we use? They would need to be of equal in the number of states, which makes it difficult. Some regions, such as the Northeast, have many states that are relatively small geographically, while others, such as the Great Plains, have a few, large states.

I'll make an attempt at dividing the country into 5 regions:

Northeast:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
(District of Columbia)*

Midwest:
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Ohio
Kentucky
Indiana
Michigan
Illinois
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota

South:
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Tennessee
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas

Plains and Mountains:
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
Utah
Idaho

West and Southwest:
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
California
Oregon
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii

*Floats in the calendar attached to Maryland. Will always hold their primary the same date as Maryland.

American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, and Democrats Abroad each have votes in the DNC but not the RNC. The best, if rather unfair, solution would be for them to always vote last, given that they do not vote in the general election anyway.

Some of these groupings are very artificial (Midwest being the most notable for the inclusions of KY, WV and PA), but they need to each have 10 states.

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARLHAYDEN, i definitely think your idea is a fresh and very good one, but there might be a couple problems.  though i love the congressional district idea, most states that have few districts (think plains states or states like new hampshire) don't have much in the way of minorities, and often tend to be more conservative.  liberals and minorities might not like that idea.  secondly, residents of the biggest states would definitely complain if you force them to wait until the very end of the primary season, california would be the only state ineligible to hold a primary before june.  but with a little tinkering, i think that plan could definitely be successful. 

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you on this.

The reason for giving the small states priority is that it reduces the effectiveness of money and media support, and gives the voters a chance to actually vet the candidates.

I still sympathize with Hubert Humphrey who compained in 1960 that he simply cound't compete with Jack's 'jack' (money).

To update and amplify, there are a few other matters which would make the system more responsible.

First, primaries should be open ONLY to those affiliating at least 30 calendar days in advance of the primary with the party in whose primary they which to cast a ballot.

Second, I believe that all states with primaries should follow the example which Oregon had (and may still have) of allowing the candidates listed on the ballot to make a brief statement to the prospective voters to be included in the phamplet sent to the voters for a nominal fee.

Third, all government funded radio and television stations should be required to provided a modicum of coverage to all ballot qualified candidates.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Two men enters one man leaves. I like that system.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Two men enters one man leaves. I like that system.

Sorry Verily, but as you can see, there a multiple candidates for the party nomination in both major parties (not just two).

Furthermore, it is not unusual for a candidate to 'lose' a primary and emerge stonger thereafter if he/she signicantly exceeded expectations.

Easy example is McCarthy losing in New Hampsire in 1968.  He lost to a write in candidate, but did better than expected.

[True Democrat]

We need to go back to the old style  conventions.  Primaries should play a role, but not nearly as much as they do now.  Have a primary for every state, with primaries controlling around 40% of the delegates.  This allows another candidate to possibly emerge to defeat the candidate who won the primaries.  Let the establishment decide.