I think this is how parties should nominate candidates for Prez. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 07:54:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  I think this is how parties should nominate candidates for Prez. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: I think this is how parties should nominate candidates for Prez.  (Read 15156 times)
jman724
Rookie
**
Posts: 131
United States


« on: June 17, 2006, 01:12:23 PM »

I think starting off with a nationwide vote would really undermine the influence of the individual states.  The top three contenders in the nationwide vote will always be the wealthiest with the highest name recognition.  You see how Iowa and New Hampshire often establish a near-unstoppable front-runner, that would just happen on a much larger scale if there was a nationwide primary. 

My idea is rotate in every election year the order of the states.  The country should be divided into four regions, with no more than one state per region having a primary on any given week.  There would be two or four primaries per week, with two primaries per week at the beginning of the contest and as it nears the end switch to four per week.  The contest would take place between january and june, with conventions held in july.  I would also greatly reduce the amount of "superdelegates."

I also think that if Iowa and New Hampshire throw a fit about giving up their right to hold the first primary/caucus, they should be denied delegates at the convention if they don't hold their contest on the date selected by the national party. 
Logged
jman724
Rookie
**
Posts: 131
United States


« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2006, 04:05:50 PM »

Have all the primaries be on one day, that would be gine.

Wow. I have been saying that since 2000 and no one has ever agreed with me.

I also agree.

Could you guys offer an explanation as to why you think it would be better this way?  We know my point of view and argument, but i'd like to see why you guys prefer the nationwide primary. 
Logged
jman724
Rookie
**
Posts: 131
United States


« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2006, 06:03:02 PM »

Have all the primaries be on one day, that would be gine.

Wow. I have been saying that since 2000 and no one has ever agreed with me.

I also agree.

Could you guys offer an explanation as to why you think it would be better this way?  We know my point of view and argument, but i'd like to see why you guys prefer the nationwide primary. 

It leads to better campaigns for the primary because they wont be able to turn it around half way through. This one-day primary forces candidates to give it all they have. In other words, it will eliminate the likelyhood of the candidates being two people who said the right thing on Super Tuesday. That's my main reason, that and it would save an anus load of time.

Is saying the right thing on super tuesday necessarily bad?  I think one of the biggest benefits to state-by-state primaries is the fact that candidates really have to look at the issues most affecting those individual states.  Unfortunately it doesn't count for crap once they are governing. 
Logged
jman724
Rookie
**
Posts: 131
United States


« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2006, 06:09:51 PM »

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. 
Logged
jman724
Rookie
**
Posts: 131
United States


« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2006, 05:31:08 PM »

Have all the primaries be on one day, that would be gine.

Wow. I have been saying that since 2000 and no one has ever agreed with me.

I also agree.

Could you guys offer an explanation as to why you think it would be better this way?  We know my point of view and argument, but i'd like to see why you guys prefer the nationwide primary. 

It leads to better campaigns for the primary because they wont be able to turn it around half way through. This one-day primary forces candidates to give it all they have. In other words, it will eliminate the likelyhood of the candidates being two people who said the right thing on Super Tuesday. That's my main reason, that and it would save an anus load of time.

Is saying the right thing on super tuesday necessarily bad?

No, but it urks me how a candidate can be a pathetic waste of cells and organs for an entire year...and then finish second (or even first!) because they rattled off ONE good line of crap.

very true, fortunately one-line politicians usually see their campaigns crumble when the pressure is really on.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 10 queries.