How can we improve the primary process?

[question everything]

We started with eight candidates, and after elections in six states, comprising less than 40 million people (including Michigan and Florida) - 13% if the total population - only 3 left (yes, I do include Gravel).

Is this the best way to select the party nominee?

I am not even sure about rotating regional primaries, anymore, since the proposals would still leave Iowa and New Hampshire as the lead. Why is it that three good candidates: Biden, Dodd and Richardson left so soon? Was it just the money or did they consider their chances long shot and were just going to give it a try?

I posted several times, asking all the candidates to stay at least until Feb. 6th. I suggested that they did not need to campaign in all the Super Duper states; just visiting them, as Edwards did yesterday in Minnesota, and would get the local media of candidates-starved states to cover them.

We saw the van of the local ABC affiliate at the union hall where Edwards spoke and the 10 O'Clock new had an extensive coverage.

(This still bothers many of us: Edwards came, people waited in the cold - wind chill of -35 - shook his hands, he promised he would stay yet, as his speech today revealed, he already knew that he was going to quit. So why come and raise the hopes of so many people?)

So now we are left with two "identity" candidates. The woman or the black man.. Even though neither wished to be perceived as such, they are, thanks to their supporters.

Several months ago on NPR I've heard a bit about another proposal, to start with several states with a total of 8 electoral votes. A month later, another group of states with a total of 16 electoral votes and so one. This may be worth a try.

This year many states rushed to the head of the lines only to find themselves in the same place as they were in 2004 and, perhaps in 1992 - do not remember - only 2 candidates left out of about 8 who started.

Are we doomed to this process or is there a better way?

[grmamo]

1. every state voting the same day just like in the GE - everyone gets a say n/t

[Blue-Jay]

6. Bad idea.

Having a national primary date isn't really fair to the candidates who haven't been able to raise the shitload of money it would take to campaign in every state at once. If you want to complain about "corporate candidates", see what would happen if all the primaries happened on one day.

I could go for the rotating primary idea in theory.

[Horse with no Name]

21. *OR* just maybe...it would require that people actually take the time

to study up on their candidate instead of being spoon-fed bullshit by the M$M. :think:
1. Campaign finance reform
2. Single Primary day
3. Limit campaigning to 6 months prior to the general.

[joshcryer]

25. Or free advertizing, nationally, for those who can get a million signatures or something.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. nah, it wouldn't do that

you really think it would change the habits of 100 million people?

A national primary would mean candidates would never have to go out and meet anybody. They'd run their campaigns from their office, buying air time, doing television, recording ads.

Nobody without a lot of money to start with could even consider running. Jimmy Carter never could've won. Bill Clinton never could've won.

[aquart]

2. Six months, start to finish, all inclusive.

Anyone starting a primary or campaign or asking for cash or airing an ad before or after that time to be shot.

[rpannier]

3. No media polling and end the so-called professional opinions

[derby378]

4. Make Texas the first state to vote in the primaries in 2012

Really, why should Iowa have all the fun?

[question everything]

12. Yes, why?

We are having our caucuses next week and this evening at least once an hour someone calls..

I cannot imagine how Iowans and New Hampshirites managed all those weeks.

[bigwillq]

5. Shorten the campaign season

And have a National Primary

[alarimer]

7. My vote and those of millions of others will not count

Our primary is not until March 4. I am pretty sure it will be decided by then. In any case, my preferred candidate is now out. How can this system be considered at all democratic?

[Cleita]

10. Hillary Clinton will probably be the Democratic candidate.

Never mind your vote won't count anyway because the electoral college will vote for the winner. How is that democratic?

[MonkeyFunk]

27. If your state had gone first

do you think things would be very different today?

The people who drop out do so because they're doing poorly, and their own polling shows they have no chance.

[nancyharris]

8. The logic and tradition

of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada (new) and South Carolina being first in the nation is not at all bad. They are small states with a collectively diverse population and the media markets are by comparison to larger states, inexpensive. It allows for candidates with smaller budgets and little name recognition to get a foothold if their message resonates with the public. People like Clinton, Carter, McCain, Bush, Reagan Kerry Huckabee all started out small and managed to gain traction and national attention by going through the "up close and personal" trial of these small states.

The fact that Edwards, Thompson, Giuliani and Richardson did not survive is a testament to their inability to connect with the much of the public in a convincing manner.

[Cleita]

13. If we make our media responsible and make them cover all

the qualifying candidates equally, that should solve that problem. They won't really need to do the whistle stop campaigning because they can reach their supporters countrywide on the radio, TV and internet. But we will have to make the media be responsible and equal in fairness of coverage. Since the airwaves supposedly belong to we the people, we should be allowed to use them for the purpose of electing our leaders.

[nancyharris]

16. Governmental control of the media is a pipe-dream

and one that most Americans would consider fascist. One cannot even "define" media let alone govern it. Who decides in your world what a newspaper writer can say and not say? Who decides in your world just who is a "qualifying candidate"? Who decides when TV stations broadcast speeches given by candidates? Who decides the copy for each evening newscast and each political affairs discussion? If you think the government should be in charge of this, regulate it and make these decisions then the first Amendment means nothing to you.

[Cleita]

18. Nobody said anything about governmental "control".

What I said was that if the media is covering elections, they should be equal and fair like they used to be back when I can remember. Also, since we supposedly own the airwaves, some time could be allocated for campaigns providing equal time is given to all sides. It doesn't have to be a lot of time just maybe an hour a week for each candidate providing each one gets equal time. We used to do it and it wasn't called fascist back then. It was deemed a duty by the networks to keep the populace informed. Back then the networks offered a daily news show because the airwaves were public and because they felt it was their civic duty. They didn't do it for profit and entertainment. Most of those news programs run by real journalists who were interested in facts and fairness. That's why Nixon was almost impeached and Prz. lameduck hasn't been.

[nancyharris]

23. You have a very romantic view of the past.

However, the media has never been fair or equal. It may well be that you thought the media was fair because they were (at the time) promoting candidates or ideas that you liked, but in reality they were incredibly biased (more so than today). There was never equal-time alloted for candidates and the mud-slinging during political campaigns was just as ferocious as it is today. Journalist have been biased since the time of Gutenberg and their concept of "civic duty" was (as it is today) to sell newspapers (or soap in the case of electronic media).

[Cleita]

24. Believe me I will take Edward R. Murrow's newscasts

any day over what passes for news today. Our American broadcasters really did do it better in the forties and fifties. It wasn't so bad even in the sixties and seventies and CNN was okay until Turner sold out. Now it's all a joke. The Los Angeles Times was a newspaper I never missed because of the quality most of my life until a few years ago when it turned into a propaganda rag. It's become a disgrace and I used to be a person who absorbed all of it. I have turned it all off because it was so disgraceful.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. There was NEVER a time when all candidates in a primary

got equal coverage. You're remmbering something that never was.

[Cleita]

36. No but there was a law for every candidate or political party that

got air time, the news program involved had to give the opposition equal time. If they chose not to exercise that right it was okay but it had to be offered to them and the news program had to state that the opposition had declined to comment. You can't tell me with a straight face that it's done now. Sure the system wasn't perfect but it attempted equality in coverage.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. So how would you force

cable networks to comply? There are no airwaves involved.

[Cleita]

37. Making laws? Remember those quaint statutes that are supposed

to govern our society for the greater good? Cable has actually brought this mess about by not being regulated as the networks but forcing the networks to compete. At least make a law so that networks like FOX have to put a disclaimer in their programs stating that certain one sided content is the opinion of the management and may differ from other opinions. I'm not a law maker or I would be president today so I leave that up to our elected officials to accomplish with the usual big goose from the electorate to do the will of the people behind them.

All I ask is that they give candidates and differing political content equal time. What we have now are dueling news programs, with either a Republican POV (lies) or a Democratic POV (at lot of whining). I long for the days of both sides having an equal place at the opinion table with no shouting and talking over each other to make their points.

Of course another way to accomplish this is to turn off those programs until they air their content in a principled, journalistic way. I already have for years now. How about you?

[Cleita]

9. I think it's wrong to put federal elections in the hands of the states.

We should have one primary date and one general election date with both those days designated a federal holiday with the feds operating the voting and both parties acting as auditors. I think we should shorten the campaign season to six weeks prior to the primaries and six weeks before the November election. Campaigns for the general election should be funded by the government to qualifying candidates of all parties involved. No media should be allowed to cover the elections unless they are prepared to give equal time and access to all the candidates of all partie. AND the ballots should be done in the run-off election style. But this is too much like a Democracy to gain much popularity with the establishment dickheads.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. I can spot at least four items there

that would require constitutional amendments to implement.

[Cleita]

35. Of course it would and we do need an election overhaul if

we are to get our democracy back. That would take ammendments.

[Lebam in LA]

11. 6 Month Primary Season

50 State Primary
All debates televised on all networks (free)
Candidates can only raise $1,000,000 and it pays to enter the primary (no millionaires can buy the election)
All entry-fee money raised goes to pay for the primary, shared by all

This needs alot of work...but just a few ideas

[Aussie leftie]

14. If every state voted on the same day

with a preferential system. eg. On a Democrat ticket each candidate is listed. You number each candidate in order of preference. If a candidate has more than 50% of the votes, then he/she is the nominated candidate. If that doesn't happen, then the candidate who has the least votes, his first preferences are then distributed. Then the next candidate who has the least votes...same again., until you are left with one candidate. Unfortunately, you would have to have a universal voting system first.

There is no way you can get away from the fact that some candidates will have a lot more money than others. Possibly, limit the amount of advertising they are allowed to have.

[rpannier]

15. I like the French system

Two weeks before the election is when it starts... no sooner

[Tatiana]

17. Two primary days: 28 on one day, 28 on the other. n/t

[no name no slogan]

19. Get rid of proportional delegate selection, go to direct vote of nominee

and have five or six "super tuesday"-style regional primaries. For starters.

[Tatiana]

20. I like the idea of regional primaries, too. n/t

[no name no slogan]

22. I remember studying regional primaries when I was in college (20 years ago)

I was a PoliSci major, and even back then we were talking about possible ways to "fix" the primary system.

It just goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. So just a plurality to win?

Say we 7 candidates, and the "winner" gets 28%. He should automatically be the nominee?

[Nailzberg]

26. We put all the candidates in a house. Each week we can watch TV to see how they interact.

At the end of each episode, they have a challenge. A debate. A stump speech. Press Conference. Photo Op/Formal Dinner with foreign dignitary. Conflict resolution between to waring countries. etc.

And at the end of the episode we the people call in to vote for their favorite. One candidate is dropped from the show each week until we have our winner.

[Hart2008]

33. Eliminate the 796 SuperDelegates! Make the Democratic party democratic!.

As long as the SuperDelegates are almost 20% of the delegates to the convention, and we have a process where only 2 candidates are allowed to continue to Super Tuesday, we insure that the SuperDelegates are the king-makers, not the elected delegates.

If this is now a two person race, the SuperDelegates will now decide the nominee at the convention.

[Byronic]

34. Rip it up

and start again?

Let's begin the contest again.

Only Biden, Dodd and Richardson as candidates. Public financed.

Well, I can dream, can't I.....?