Posted on 08/31/2007 9:06:35 PM PDT by gpapa
The way things are going, the first votes in the 2008 Presidential election may yet be cast in 2007, more than 10 months before the national elections next November. This is not an improvement.
In a little-noticed move this week, Wyoming Republicans moved their party conventions to January 5, beating out Michigan, which just moved its primaries to January 15. State laws in Iowa and New Hampshire require those states, in turn, to leapfrog Michigan and Wyoming, potentially pushing one or both elections into December. So voters in those two states might have to interrupt their holidays to participate in a Presidential primary campaign better held during a much less busy season.
This maneuvering continues a Presidential election process that is changing in ways that make it both longer, yet paradoxically less reflective, than ever. Sixty years ago, Presidential nominees were chosen largely by delegates to conventions held in late summer, between 60 to 90 days before the actual vote. That system gave us FDR, Truman and Ike, to name three better than average Presidents. It also gave us Warren Harding--but then no system is perfect.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
this is really getting ridiculous. just have the states vote alphabetically or something random.
I still don’t see why states that are having major elections in November, 2007 don’t go ahead and put the primary on at the same time. It would save a significant amount of money for the taxpayers.
Hmm...not a bad idea. I don't think many states have odd year elections, though.
OTOH, wouldn't it be refreshing to have a British style election? Their campaigns are only three weeks long!
LA and MS elect governors in Nov 2007. As I recall, Washington and Allegheny County, PA elect commissioners (maybe all counties in PA)?
Mississippi and Louisiana are the only two I can think of.
At the current pace of things...I think most folks will be easily bored by politics by June of next year. The networks will be scratching their head...over what to show for nightly news when no one cares. The September/October run-up? I don’t think either candidate will find huge crowds at their campaign stops.
I agree...there ought to be a 30-day period...preferably in April, where all 50 states hold primaries, and then the party meetings in July to wrap up the minor mess. Face it...all of these idiots have to run campaigns on cash...and if you start this far ahead...you need twice the amount of cash as you did before...so you will insist on bribes and foreign money to support your efforts. We are only breeding corruption at the highest level by running early campaigns.
The present system is why we are burning food in our gas tanks...Gotta keep those Iowa farmers happy.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog....
I am beginning to wonder if this is a trick to decide who gets to be President by a selected few and not the voter.
Like Hitlery wants to eliminate the Electorial College.
Primaries are each party’s business. They’re trying to do what they think will best accomplish their mission: Pick the best candidate to win the election.
Each time out, the losers tend to haggle with the system in order to avoid the mistakes they made last time. And succeed in making new ones, which they then try to avoid the next time, and so it goes.
But it has no business being regulated by government. It’s a party affair.
Why not have a national primary where all the states and territories vote in their respective caucus's and primaries on the same day. The results would be held until the last poll closes in American Samoa. That way, no state would have any advantage and we wouldn't be voting in a primary for the candidate 12 years from now......
Why not have a national primary where all the states and territories vote in their respective caucus’s and primaries on the same day.”
1) Then the candidate with most visibility will be the media-chosen candidate and not the candidate who does best at the marathon of local / state political races with the grassroots base.
2) You can also say goodbye to Federalism.
3) No winnowing as we had in pre-2008 primaries means the national primary may not decide anything.Back to convention selections.
BLAME AHNOLD ... AND HILLARY.
This was all about RINO Arnold and other CA politicians wanting Cali to have a bigger voice in the primary and moving it up to February from June, and about Hillary trying to compress the schedule so no other challenger could emerge to stand up to her media-money juggernaut.
THE SOLUTION:
Require that only a certain percentage of delegates can be chosen by a certain time - 10% of delegates be selected in January; at most 30% by February, 60% by March, and the rest afterwards. (ie 10%/20%/30%/40%). Any state that moves up their calendar loses delegates. states later in the calendar get more delegates.
No selection prior to January 15th.
We pray for the law of unintended consequences to kick in.
A lot of these date changes aren’t being made with notice for candidates to file or register.
bump
I believe that increasing the number of uncommitted delegates would have a tendency of driving these primaries back into the right period. If the State Party delegates were elected and and only half allowed to commit to a specific candidate.. then the decision would be made at the convention again, where it should be made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.