Im only discussing primary voting here, but I think weve long since given up the electoral system, except when someone needs it to win. For all practical purpose we have a popular voting system. The electoral college was made for a day where there was no instant communication and 24 hour news. I dont see a rolling voting system as an administrative nightmare though. We have computers to do the work.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

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.

Ball and Cap pistols at 50 yards.

__________________

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.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

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...

I can't imagine how you could limit the amount of time someone can campaign.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

Better yet, if no one gets a majority of votes, a runoff between anyone with a significant percentage until someone does.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I have a Really wacky idea - Given that both halves of our ruling party are officially private entities, let them hold their primaries However They Choose - all at once, alphabetically by state, alphabetically by voter name, or whatever. The only thing Really wrong here is that the government is dictating the internal workings of an ostensibly law-abiding private entity. They don't care who gets the little league MVP, or who is the captain of the bowling team, or any number of other things, why should they dictate how a political nominee is selected? After all, if a party has a particularly good/bad method of candidate selection, that can become another factor for voters to consider when deciding who is fit to rob our grandchildren blind.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I agree. I wasnt sugessting the govt come up with this method, but rather the parties.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

While the politicians may not spend equal times campaigning in all states, the EC offsets the exact thing you are describing. So, it works as designed by offsetting the power of states with larger, more urban centralized populations.

Why not? It's our country, not theirs, and if we get together and say that's what we want, they had better start DOING it.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

I completely agree with limiting the campaign time. I almost always get cranky as the campaigning continues, then I get burnt-out (but I still vote). However and unfortunately, it is hard to reconcile this opinion with allowing states' rights when it comes to their spending money on the primaries. There has to be a way to respect states' rights and limit campaigning time. I am not savvy enough in the law to find the way, though.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Well, what is campaigning? It's people saying (1) I (or th person I support) want to be elected to office X, (2) This is why I (or th person I support) should be elected, or (3) This is what my (his/her) views on policy are.

To stop people from campaigning, you'd effectively have to stop people from describing what they thing gov. policy should be and forbid them from telling anyone who they wanted to see elected to public office.
Not only would it be a blatant violation of free speech, it would also be completely unenforceable; you'd effectively be outlawing discussions of politics in an election year.

And, finally, it would give massive power to the incumbents since they effectively "campaign" through the actions they take in office.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt