Would you favor a primary system where first in the nation status

[elperromagico]

Poll question: Would you favor a primary system where first in the nation status

is rotated?

[Spectral]

1. By the time they get to some states, the primary is already decided

:donut:

[lenidog]

6. You almost wonder why are they bothering

we already know who is the nominee

[NoPasaran]

2. I would rather see a primary season less front-end loaded

I think a longer primary season would let us examine the prospective candidates more carefully.

[LuPeRcALiO]

3. Like to NY?

Now who would that help?

:sarcasm:

[lenidog]

4. Why not have them all at once

pick a day in the middle of the year before the conventions and have all the primaries at once.

[Journeyman]

5. I'd also like to see the primaries held regionally. . .

so we can force the candidates to deal with specific, regional issues instead of vague national generalities. It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be better than what we have. And there wouldn't be as much travel time, either, so the primaries wouldn't cost as much (or better yet, so the money could be better spent).

[elperromagico]

8. So the South would have its primary on one day,

the Midwest on another, the Northeast on another, et cetera?

Is that what you're suggesting?

[Journeyman]

10. Yes. And then, through rotating the order. . .

each region would get to vote first every six or so election cycles. I like a division of 6, so every one would get a chance to vote first at least once or twice in an average lifespan.

[longship]

7. Voted yes, but

I'd prefer to bring back the smoke-filled rooms of a time prior to 1960 when the politics of selecting a nominee was a truly political affair with the people represented by a hierarchy of elected delegates. Yes, it was nasty and possibly dirty. But, it was extrememly difficult for an opposition party to game the system of their opponent. That's not true now.

By involving the entire public in the process we've extended the presidential political season to years. This has made it rife with corruption, dirty tricks, and outright fraud. Sometimes an indirect route is the best way to do things. In spite of the problems with the system, looking at the last forty years of presidential politics, isn't putting delegates in a room to fight it out seem like a better way to proceed in the future?

I just don't like the primary system. It doesn't work. We get too many feckless candidates who appeal only to the public's fixation on Elvis, Michael Jackson, and the prurient garbage on TV.

A pure delegate nomination system would take only a few months. We'd actually get a break from politicking once in a while. Plus, we'd likely get a better slate of candidates.

[elperromagico]

9. I think a lot of the changes are due to the parties' awareness

of how a divided convention will look on TV.

The 1924 Democratic convention ran to 104 ballots before a compromise candidate was selected. Platform debates could drag on for hours as well. That's an extreme circumstance but it provides a good example of how intense the nomination process has gotten in the past.

Now, everything's cold and clinical. Conventions are essentially stage managed by the presumptive nominee to fit whatever message that nominee wants to present. It's dull TV but it fosters the image of party harmony.

[longship]

11. Difficult to wrap my mind around

the concept that we have to have a completely screwed up political process solely to satisfy a group of numb-nuts who think:

• Watching people eat worms is entertainment.
  
• Elvis, Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Jennifer Lopez are great Americans.
  
• All comedic portrayals must be accompanied by inane recordings of people laughing.
  
• Science is the study of UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, and haunted houses.
  
• Education should include more about motor cycles and ill-tempered asshole builders of motor cycles.
  
• Opinion polls, popularity surveys, and the sales of toilet paper should determine what information should be presented as journalism.
  
• All issues, regardless of complexity, can be best characterized as strict dichotomies.
  
• Facts are unimportant as long as one presents both sides of an issue.
  
• etc.
  

I could go on, but you get the picture.