We don't need a rotation at all, and we don't need a race to have the first in the nation primary or caucus.  We need to have our primaries and caucuses all on the same day so that no one area gets any more attention than others do and so that no one state gets to select the nominee and front runner for any other state.

Run the primaries and caucuses over a 48 hour period and black out the news until all states have gotten final results counted.  Let everyone wait, and let everyone hear the results at the same time.

If someone is good enough to win South Carolina, they ought to be good enough to win in New Hampshire, or Iowa, or California, or Texas or Maryland all at the same time.

If no winner is selected via the primary process, too frackin' bad.  Go to the convention and let the delegates hammer it all out as they used to before the days of heavy influence by the media.

the states that go first would be rotated on a set schedule. This would eventually allow all sates to play a major part in the election.

On the face of it, this sounds good. But let's think a little about it.

First, if your premise is correct (i.e. the early states determine the nominee) it means every four years we would have a nominee DETERMINED BY FEW STATES albeit a different few. So what did WE achieve? .... nothing i suppose.

Second, the current FEW states who vote early are really small states, they really dont determine the nominees. What they do is scrutinize the candidates in an extraordinary way of personal and very close encounter way that shows what and who everyone of them really are.

We may envy those little few states. but no other few states could achieve what they do. imagine in your state for example; can you guys there do what the people in Iowa or NH do? i doubt it. in my state, NJ, smaller than yours .... I dont think we can do that. We are busy, self-occupied, have no time for a looong lunches or breakfasts at local diners to sit and listen to those politicians bare their souls and ideas .... most of us will say : yeah ... yeah .... i got you .... thanks .... i have to run. ... wish you the best ... bye.

People in Iowa and NH dont do that. They really squeeze those politicians, exhaust them and get them to "CRY" or beg or crumble.

I think the system as is NOW is good. States like Yours and Florida should get real and admit that they cant do what IA and NH do. They dont determine the nominees. What they do is they show the nation the reality of each candidate and the rest of the nation use that knowledge in voting. .... if we go to other large states we would know nothing other than who won and that would really be terrible. we will just go with the winner ...... no other information would be available ....

All we have to do to make the current system better is fix the voting dates of the early little states then make it a regional in such a way that no one can get more than 50% of the delegates before the final region.

I would make it 4 regions and group them to get the indicated delegates' % : East 20% , south 20%, midwest 20% and West 40%. we can make the timing between each region a month starting in March, April, May and June. This way they have a month after the early states then a month between each region. then they can hold the convention in July and August.

If they can do that, i think it would be very good and gives all states a fair chance in choosing the nominees based on a lengthy scrutiny early on and then the voting in all states.

I prefer terpfan's idea better. It is easier.

Mark this date down on the calendar!  I completely agree with ThinkAloud!

The problem isn't the primaries, the problem is our perceptions.  Why would anyone running for office drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire?  There is plenty of time and states to recover what little was lost in terms of delegates or "wins".  What is lost though is the perception of success. 

For example, right now, Mitt Romney is in the lead.  However, the perception is, that since he didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire, he is "trying to revive his campaign".  Since when does the person winning (so far) have to "revive" anything.  On the other hand, Hillary was devastated by her 3rd place showing in Iowa.  Devastated to the point of near tears, and even talking about replacing a lot of her campaign staff.  After New Hampshire, she was all smiles, and full of compliments to her campaign staff.  All the while, she is still losing to Obama in delegates, so nothing really changed from Iowa to New Hampshire... except the perceptions.

The only real big problem with our primary system is, too many states allow "open primaries".  If you let people who aren't members of a party help choose the nomiee, then it's a lie to say that the winner is the party's nominee of choice.

 

 

The mainstream media wants a Democrat in office. They will do anything to make it look like the Republicans are running around with their heads cut off. The weaker you can make your opponents look the stronger you make yourself look. Except perhaps in the case of a woman who is moved to tears.


According to O'Reilly last night, These two men who jumped up and started yelling, "Iron my shirt." may have been planted by Hillary. He thinks her response was rehearsed. I wouldn't put it past her or any of them, both sides, to do something like that.

I like Terpfan's idea as well. Rotating is not really better as Think aloud points out.  The current systme does give some power to a couple of also ran states, but that is better than having California and NY determine it.

However, when all is said and done, nothing is going to be perfect.  Terpfan's idea would give the power to the big states (because winning California is better than winning 10 small states).

How about we just eliminate those who win?  Last one standing is it.

What I think we should do is go back to the way that we voted for president and vice-president. The man/woman who gets the most votes is president and the one who comes in second gets vice-president.

I personally think we should just go back to the conventions being big brawlfests. Then you could watch them with interest, instead of them being a big pep rally. Although I see merit in a regional system, we still run into the problem of only a few states (the same few) setting the early momentum. People can say that these early contests don't decide anything, but the fact is they do. They in a large part dictate who and what gets talked about. Do you think that ethanol has had a subsidy in this country is an accident. If Iowa did not hold it's caucuses first, it would never have been talked about in the depth it has been. It is fair to rotate the schedule so that all states in time, get their time in the sun. Maybe you leave Iowa and NH first but then rotate everyone else. It just seems that letting a few states decide that are not nearly representative of this country as a whole is a shame.

Time in the sun? What, every 200 years? ROFL.

Brawlfest? Would you really want to watch Hillary duking it out physically? (((Be back in a minute, after I vomit))))