Posted on 02/11/2008 10:21:27 AM PST by nitzy
A new primary system
Why do we use the same primary voting system in the 21st century that we did in the 18th? The old system was set up to counter the inconveniences of time and distance. Advances in communication have overcome these obstacles yet we vote as if those advances had never been made at all. A new system could be devised which would take special interests, party bosses and smoke filled back rooms out of the process. This new system would give the power to the party faithful and ensure that the party nominee would be chosen by the people and not the institutions, the contributors, the other party’s infiltrators or the media.
An online primary system could be set up which would fulfill all of these goals and transform American politics forever. I propose a system of 5 online contests over the primary election season. The five contests would each be spaced a month apart. The online elections would pare the filed from 50 to 20 to 10 to 4 to 2 and ultimately one final party nominee who will inherit an enormous war chest with which to wage the general election battle. Each online vote would be comprised of two parts: an endorsement for a particular candidate AND a $20 donation to the party. The donation would have to be made with a Paypal account or credit card issued to an individual and each individual registered party member will be limited to one vote.
Approximately 20 million party members will have participated in each of the primary contests this election cycle. If just 25% of those voters cast votes in all 5 of the online contests, a war chest of $500 million dollars would be waiting for the eventual nominee of the party to be used in the general election. Each member will have donated a maximum of $100 to the party. This $500 million will come with NO STRINGS other than a promise to follow the platform of the party and not the wishes of any other financial contributors. In order to ensure party loyalty trumps special interests the nominee will only be able to use his party’s donation to execute his general election campaign. $500 million is the amount that political observers are predicting will be spent by each of the candidates in this year’s general election so he would not be at any disadvantage.
I think this was posted this morning by some one else.
Anything but the manipulated system we have now.
I’ve watched the videos on the security of the Diebold voting machines, I’m even less confident of an entirely online primary system. There’s no paper trail and the results could entirely be hacked by the same smoke filled back room people that you are saying are manipulating the system now.
Let’s get some party leaders who are a lot smarter than the ones we have now. Every state has the dumbest party members in state politics running the store.
Insist on no campaigns beginning before Labor Day and devising ways for leaders, not necessarily millionaires, are able to run for all offices, not just town councils. Well, you asked!!!
I guess you realize the Royal Society of Loud Whiners is gonna have a fit about the 20 bucks. They’ll yell, “Poll Tax,” “Racist,” “Divider,” “Women And Children Hurt Most,” etc.
Personally I’d prefer there be NO campaigning before Jan 1st of an election year. All primaries to be closed. If you wanna be an “independent,” tough.
The RS of LW can find some other party to support.
Not to mention the fact that if the Republicans were to pick this way we would be sending a nominee to the general who raised $500 million - $20 at a time from average Americans. The Democrats will be sending a nominee who raised $500 million from the Hollywierd elite, Unions Bosses, Big Business and special interests at $1000 a plate dinners. Who in the end will be able to apeal most to the RS of LW?
The Parties and their primaries and their funding are extra-Constitutional. FedGov should not be participating in regulation of them and should not be providing personnel and hardware and supplies for the primaries.
I agree wholeheartedly. This cycle started way too early and it is absurd to have Republican polls in which nonmembers vote.
What are your thoughts on when the primaries are held? I think it makes sense to have a few states at a time, but wonder how to decide which states vote first. How about a lottery style pick where the state that cast the most votes (proportionately) for the republican nominee in the prior election gets their choice of one of five dates (a month apart), and so on down the line?
This might allow the most "republican" states to have a choice of when they want to influence the process.
I would be more inclined to trust a handful of known Republican staff computer administrators who all have background checks, social security numbers, names and reputations. The current nominees are picked, vetted and financed by nameless faceless heads of media and industry. The current tabulation process is spread out over thousands of nameless faceless individuals who have the capability to compromise the system at any point.
I agree. This system would be completely independent of the tax payers.
How about this:
There are five closed primaries held on the second Saturday of Feb, Mar, Apr, May and Jun. RATS and PUBS vote on the same day. (This splitting the voting onto two different days is stupid and costs the taxpayers a ton of money.)
On Dec 1st before the Jan 1st when campaigning can begin, there is a random draw among the 50 states. Those drawing numbers 1-10 will have their primary in Feb, 11-20 in Mar, etc. This give the states having their primary in Feb two and a half months to prepare. Should be plenty of time.
I know there are more than 50 primaries as Wash, DC has one and I think PR has one and maybe Guam, etc. But you get the general idea.
I also think this would be much easier on the candidates.
Another thing to consider is having all candidates who want to run to announce on Dec 1st. Can’t announce before Dec 1st and can’t campaign before Jan 1st.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#Reform_proposals
Here’s one of my suggestions:
How the Republican PartyCommitted National Suicide
Posted by Kevmo to PlainOleAmerican
On News/Activism 02/01/2008 11:25:17 AM PST · 33 of 227
The ten most Republican states in 2004 (a Republican year) were Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Kansas, Alaska and Texas, in that order. Yet only one of these states has held a primary thus far, Wyoming. Before the rest will get a chance to vote, all Republicans are out of the race.
***Right there is the biggest clue to how party primaries ought to be run. That should be the ORDER of the primaries, based upon what the highest percentages of republican votes. Those states that have high percentages of republicans would encourage more turnout in blowout elections because the results count towards primary order.
One thing that nags at me is that the large ‘liberal’ states like New York (where I currently live) and California, states that usually do not vote republican, have such a disproportionate impact upon the nomination process. I would prefer that their impact be spread out.
Any ideas on how to do that?
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.