Quote:
Originally Posted by noahath
Personally I think the current primary system is flawed in the respect that what if voters in say Montana wanted to vote for someone other than Obama or Clinton ... or even McCain? They can't because voters in earlier states have already forced other candidates out. Some of those candidates may have done well in states that held primaries at a later time. I think the suggestion in the OP is not a bad one. I still think there's flaws, but certainly less than the current system.
|
I think that could be solved by changing up the order of primaries. My suggestion is that states should vote in order based on the number of delegates they have, with the state with the fewest delegates voting first and the state with the most delegates voting last.
Thus the little states wouldn't be ignored since they would set the tone for the whole campaign and would give the less financially able candidates a chance to make a splash and raise some funds. And, if states like Ohio, Texas and California voted last, very rarely would the primary season end before every state had had a chance to vote.
...on the other hand, I'm about sick of this primary season, so maybe that's a bad idea...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler1
One day for a national primary, with ALL candidates running (so you aren't left with only the ones with the most moola). Democratic and Republican primaries to be one week apart. One month to campaign for that primary. NO superdelegates, and in the event of a tie, a runoff between the two.
|
I can't imagine how you could limit the amount of time someone can campaign.