Time for a rotating primary schedule...
JCMach1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-04 11:45 PM
Original message |
Time for a rotating primary schedule... |
|
Enough of NH and Iowa already.
Why should two such small states play such a large part in the process. Imagine if the first primary had been somewhere else?
Just one of the whackjob things about our system that needs to be cleaned up.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-04 11:46 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It favors incumbent presidents, for one thing.
|
DjTj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-04 11:51 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Small states give outsiders a chance... |
|
...If it started in a large state, the only people that could compete would be those who have raised a whole lot of money.
Everyone in Iowa probably got to see their candidate at least once. That just wouldn't be possible in California or New York.
I think a small state is definitely the way to go.
|
JCMach1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-04 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. You could still keep a small state first.... |
|
then go to medium, then large... Perhaps even spread them out more evenly in February and March.
Think how different things might have gone if say Oklahoma had gone first...
Or Nevada. Alaska anyone??
|
Bombtrack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Alaska would never work, it's huge in area and separated by Canada |
|
Edited on Sun Jan-25-04 12:05 AM by Bombtrack
Not to mention it's a fricken wasteland
that's just a waist of money
Delaware is one state that just screams to be the alternative. It's close to DC and very small. Rhode Island would also work. As well as west virginia
|
JCMach1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. I just say fairly distribute them... |
|
and perhaps end some of the nonsense.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Yes, get rid of the Iowa and New Hampshire stranglehold |
Shanty Oilish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 12:11 AM
Response to Original message |
|
If anyone's forgotten. No guarantees of its accuracy, I got it off DU.
January 27 New Hampshire
February 3 Arizona Delaware Missouri New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma South Carolina
February 7 Michigan Washington
February 8 Maine
February 10 Tennessee Virginia
February 14 District of Columbia Nevada
February 17 Wisconsin
February 24 Hawaii Idaho Utah
March 2 California Connecticut Georgia Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota New York Ohio Rhode Island Vermont
March 9 Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas
March 13 Kansas
March 16 Illinois
March 20 Alaska Wyoming
April 13 Colorado
April 27 Pennsylvania
May 4 Indiana North Carolina
May 11 Nebraska West Virginia
May 18 Arkansas Kentucky Oregon
June 1 Alabama South Dakota
June 8 Montana New Jersey
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 12:13 AM
Response to Original message |
8. I rather like this timetable for the primaries but.... |
|
I think Iowa should change back to the primary system rather than the caucus.. I do not think it really works that well...We could see on TV the way they were swapping and horse-trading - that shouldn't be done with our votes.
|
JCMach1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Or get rid of the 15% viability BS |
|
I suspect in that environment DK, for example, would have gotten 10-15%.
|
isbister
(902 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. ...horse-trading - that shouldn't be done with our votes |
|
Isn't it their votes? Iowa should decide for Iowa.
|
Kat45
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 01:00 AM
Response to Original message |
10. What if they had all the primaries on the same day? |
|
No advantage goes to any particular state(s). The candidates have to think about and campaign to the people in the entire country. Everybody gets to vote for their preferred candidate because no candidate would have already already dropped out before their state gets to vote. With everyone voting on the same day, nobody is influenced by how others have already voted. I haven't had the time yet to think the idea through in depth, but I do think I like it.
|
bicentennial_baby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
I also have yet to think it through, but I like it so far.
|
isbister
(902 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-04 01:19 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun Jan 05th 2025, 12:08 AM
Response to Original message |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.