Comments on: Build a better presidential primary system

By: GMC70

GMC70 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:47:49 +0000

It can be done, but it serves no one’s interests to do so. The media loves the extended horserace, it sells papers and/or airtime, and consequently toothpaste.

The candidates milk the current system to raise as much money as they can; contributors get to buy their candidates of choice (or in actuality, all of them; institutions routinely hedge their bets by contributing to both sides).

States are looking to make their state a “player” by rushing to the front, only to challenge the consequences of doing so – their votes being not counted (uh, well, until the Dems decided to ignore their own rules and count the votes anyway, but only when doing so was was wouldn’t change the outcome and thus was meaningless. Yup, there’s a decision driven by principle . . . .)

Build a better primary system? Yup, it should be done . . . but it won’t. The players with their own interests in the system won’t let it happen.

By: yup

yup — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:41:56 +0000

The only problem is; when the media moves to activism on the behalf of a specific candidate, it doesn’t matter how many primaries you have. More or less, make no difference. When the media doesn’t do their job and falls in love with and shamelessly promotes a candidate; the entire deal is compromised. The ignorant and ill-informed will take their direction from the media and not bother to figure out who would best represent their interests. One or fifty (in Obama’s case, 57) wouldn’t hold a candle to media influence.

By: donndublin

donndublin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:36:28 +0000

The caucus system is too easily hijacked by unions and other special interests. We should have secret ballots. Kansas needs a primary election.

By: Regular

Regular — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:47:38 +0000

Yeah, let’s start the primaries right now, we didn’t have enough electioneering.

By: American_Way

American_Way — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:04:48 +0000

I didn’t see the primaries as a republican or democrat problem.

Michigan ring any bells for democrats?

By: Monkeyhawk

Monkeyhawk — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:00:57 +0000

Far be it from me to interfere with the Republic Party’s obviously failed strategy, but the winner-take-all system severely ill-serves them.

They were stuck with McCain in February. Winner-take-all denied CONs the opportunity to see how McCain would actually campaign in the heat of battle. Even token efforts by the also-rans hurt them; Huckabee was considered petulant and sore loser, Mittens Romney was considered arrogant and Mormon. Paul-bearers kept at it and, instead of introducing some classical conservative issues into the GOP nominating process, made themselves look more foolish than they already were.

Fewer regional primaries seem logical. Have an agricultural-based primary in the Midwest. A business-based primary in manufacturing states. An economy-based primary in NYC. An immigration-based primary along border states. Whatever….

By: American_Way

American_Way — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:44:35 +0000

“states a meaningful say in choosing the nominees”

What is the goal? Is it the fight for the media and political capital which is spent in the popular states? Is it a belief that states which launch a politician – will receive more in way of federal money for their support?

What is a “meaningful say”?

I think overall, the state primaries, provide the voter with more exposure to the candidates – and the beliefs and character of them. If they are mandated to all occur on a certain date(s), we will not have as much media exposure of the candidates – and hear less on what they stand for.

Wouldn’t it actually be better to spread out the primaries over a longer period of time before an election?

Sure, we get tired of the political commercials, but I think what drove the early bird states to move their state primary earlier – was to capture the lucrative campaign dollars, and not so much political influence.

I could be wrong and maybe not considering something.