National Primaries: Isn't it time?

[Mark E. Smith]

Poll question: National Primaries: Isn't it time?

I personally am not very happy with Iowa picking our presidential candidates. John Kerry
was, to my way of thinking, a very poor choice right from the beginning. Flawed, indecisive,
and unable to fight back effectively against the GOP smear machine. We needed a fighter,
and we got the human equivalent of a compromise.

Now we are looking at the strong possibility that Barack Obama will be handed our nomination.
There is no doubt he is charismatic and a great leader. And I am sure he would make a fine
president. But is he our strongest candidate? Will he be able to withstand the tidal wave of
smear the GOP will aim at him? On my list he would have been the fourth choice.

So here's the question: Should we stay with the system the way it is, allowing out of the way
and otherwise inconsequential states way more power than they deserve? Or have one national
super primary where all states get an equal say in selecting nominees?

[Renew Deal]

1. This is a push poll

There should be a "no" option or a "keep the current system" option.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. As a compromise, I'd go with regional primaries

spaced two weeks apart.

[Pyrzqxgl]

3. Regional primaries, 4 or 5 alternating dates with each one getting to be first in different years.

[seasat]

4. We need a system that aids low name recognition and limits big money.

A small primary where a candidate can meet voters one on one is best because of that. If you have a single national primary, then the media approved, big money candidate will win every time. I'd propose a pre-primary where you have selected areas of the country that rotate each election cycle. You'd randomly select them but make them diverse based on demographic data so they reflect the majority of the country. You'd follow that with 4 groups of states separated by a few weeks to a month that are similarly diverse based on demographic data. The groups of states would rotate order each cycle too.

[TooBigaTent]

5. The whole electoral process here in the US is so warped that you could not

purposely create a worse system.

First, all elections need to be publically financed with strict limits.

As for the timetable, I'd like to see a primary campaign of one month, a national primary, than a general campaign of another month followed by an election spanning one weekend.

Then, the politicians could actually spend their time governing instead of running. Just think of how much money would be saved.

But..... it'll never happen.

[Mark E. Smith]

9. Thoughtful post

And I agree with you.

Welcome to DU!

[vireo]

6. either regional or rotate which state goes first

A national primary would just serve to annoint the most monied candidate with the greatest name recognition. Which is not to say that such a risk does not exist regardless of the system as long as we do not have public financing, but a national primary would only exacerbate it.

If a national primary had been held yesterday, more than likely Sen. Clinton would now be the nominee. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[rucky]

7. Then it would be all about money.

Then again, Huckabee was the only underdog to benefit from Iowa.

[Buzz Clik]

8. This poll is poorly constructed, to say the least. Regardless, a national primary is impractical.

Unless you're happy with what you can learn about the candidates from ads, attack ads from opponents, televised debates, and websites, state-by-state primaries really is the only choice for grassroots involvement.