Source Okay, I knew that MI and FL had been "punished" by the Dem Overlords for changing the calendar, but I didn't know that the GOP had done it as well (but only half as bad). And if there are only going to be half as many delegates for the Repubs, why are McCain and Romney going to spend so much time and money on MI? As a question to our Michigan folk, are you going to bother to vote in the primary at all or just boycott altogether? What about a vote for "uncommitted"? I'm willing to bet that delegates will eventually be awarded to both states and that Hillary will be the benefactor in MI, since her name is still on the ballot...
Hillary is the only one on the Michigan ballot The rest of the top Democrats removed their names to avoid offending Iowa and NH voters. Hillary still won NH ouch
So, placate a state with 3 million people and a state with 1.3 million people by pissing off a state with 10 million people and a state with 20 million people. Shows about the intellect I'd expect of a Democrat
Too bad Democrat and Republican voters won't remember how their party truly appreciates them come November. It would be great if each Dem and Rep. in those two states decided to vote third party out of spite.
I'm sure there's logical reason for this, but why don't you have all the primaries on the same day? It'd stop all this crap.
1. tradition - which is bullshit 2. candidates would flock to the big states with lots of delegates and you'd have the same problem in reverse - although an argument can be made that the places with the most people ought to hold more sway 3. candidates without much funding would not be able to afford to run in the big states so you'd have money driven politics even worse than now.
Ya know, I know there's no perfect solution to this so long as states control their own election dates and everyone wants to be first but, beyond all that, I think we can all agree... Fuck New Hampshire and fuck Iowa. fuck em right in the ear. Of all the concerns that need to be addressed n a primary reform, whether or not those assholes get to go first falls somewhere south of 60,000th place on the list.
That slimy fucker tried to pull out and conveniently didn't file the right paperwork. Fuck him and everyone who looks like him.
Putting aside the injustice of giving Rhode Island the same power in dictating the nominee as California, it seems like there would be a far greater chance of a tie if there were only 50 votes up for grabs rather than whatever the total number of delegates is. As for Dennis's wife, she's worth getting abducted by aliens for.
Where's the injustice in that? Rhode Island's star is just as big as California's on the Red, White and Blue. A State is a State is a State. Each state has equal representation in the Senate, the body that represents the individual States in the Union, or at least once upon a time it did. Each State should have an equal say in determining the leader of that Union. The people get their proportionate say in the House.
I agree but now we have a situation where small states are essentially deciding whose going to run for President. Perhaps we should do away with delegates and just go to a state system where the candidate gets the state if he/she wins it. Win a majority of states you win your parties nomination. That way population doesn't matter and all states have an equal say. So the new primary system: Each state primary is worth one point. Win the state primary and get the point. Have the majority of points and you are the nominee for your party.
I've no problem with every state having equal say. That's why, ideally, all primaries should be simultaneous. But failing that, I'd have no problem with a staggered schedule like we have now, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever why the same state should be first every time. Boycotting a sovereign State of the Union because it dares have its say earlier than someone thinks it should is utterly beyond the pale.
I had a kinda of rough idea a while back in which you'd have a 10 week primary schedule with 10 groups of five states in each group ranked, the first go around, according to population (i.e. the first five are the five smallest and the last five are the five biggest) and every election after that, you rotate (so the next time the five smallest go last and the next five go first) Once every 40 years a state gets to be in the first wave. One of the great things about this is that it chucks all the "conventional wisdom" - you could never say of this election "well 4 years ago such and such happened" every new election would have to be analyzed on it's own merits - there would be no "pattern to follow" Starting with the small states first allows candidates to build momentum and candidates with less money to be able to compete early (I personally find it troubling there would ever be a year when the big states come first because of the money it would take to compete but I can tolerate it once every 40 years) but do it this way and no state feels "entitled" Oh, and do away with caucuses too....primaries or nothing. and no winner take all states. apportion the delegates by congressional districts or something. whatever you do though, make it consistent through all the states.
That is the crux of the matter all right. I like the idea of several states voting at the same time, right from the very start, and varying it every election. A series of ten primaries with 5 states each time, having a total population that is roughly equal each time, and spread out geographically. Set up on a rotation schedule so that once every 40 years (that's every ten elections) a given state is part of the first round. I actually think that the parties are going to have to modify the current system, because there are too many state parties that are in revolt. Florida and Michigan are not the only ones, they are just the only ones who were willing to face the ire of the national party structures in order to be "test cases."
I would probably be in favor of one every 2 weeks rather than one every week. Spreading it out from mid-January until the end of May is acceptable, and makes it possible for candidates to have a little more time to prepare for the next wave. This is the part of your system I find the least interesting. You say further on that starting with the five smallest states "allows candidates to build momentum and candidates with less money to be able to compete early," but in this system that would happen only once every 40 years. I prefer a system that is workable every time, not one that works only once every 40 years. All of these points amount to the same point: federalism. "The states should not have the liberty to do things there own way." I disagree on that. Let the states do it how they want as much as possible. It's bad enough that a schedule has to be imposed (though I agree that it does), without adding on a bunch more rules that all amount to taking liberty away from the states and putting it into the national party structures.
Fuckin' Michigan! Bad enough that it's a loser state in general, but if they don't start beating OSU once in a while, all hope is lost anyhow.
This much I can agree with. OSU must be beat at all costs. They are the true threat to all that is good and worthwhile in America.
