Posted on 01/10/2012 4:05:41 AM PST by Kaslin
NO
you have a primary election day for ALL states....then x months later you have general election day.
the parties would still have their conventions after the primary election and pick the candidates either by the most votes or have a brokered convention.
NY BLOWS....it is a leftist paradise...if my wife would leave her old/sick parents I would have moved to flyover country years ago....
I hate it almost as much as I hate New Hampshire.
but none of this has anthing to do with making the selection process fair for the whole country.
Winnow out the candidates after the 1 day national primary at the conventions.
spreading it out over months is counter productive in our Republic.
I don’t want a brokered convention. I prefer people’s choice. Primary winner take all.
OK fine, but do it all the same day.
until they close the primary, then no..
oh...ps
in NY only Republicans get the vote in the Republican primaries...
you granate brains need to get your schmitt together.
I’m sure your reasons for hating New Hampshire are filled with merit. Is it just the primary or do you have other equally valid reasons?
Andrea Mitchell is too pock-marked to be on TV, yet . . . there she is.
The question is really not “Is NH fit to pick a POTUS”, but rather “How come the choices are so limited by Super Tuesday, when folks like me get a chance to vote?”
I went to your lovely state once...
pretty, nice camping, I would go again.
the people there look and sound like anyone from New England. some are rock ribbed conservatives and there are a slew of liberal buttwipes too.
I do not hate New Hampshire....I do not like your primary system, as it effects the whole country for some reason. This is something that should be addressed with a constitutional amendment. By the look of things it is not on anyone of powers front burner, so relax. but it should be.
I'd vote for 'too liberal'. I'd prefer to see more conservative states vote first for a change.
The average American IQ is a mere 100. This explains their collective instinct to base decisions on what everyone else is doing and what the TV tells them to do, as well as their tendency to vote for who looks good on TV. 100 IQ’ers can barely understand the issues. PS -Advertisers know this and exploit it - why else is Madison Ave. a success?
I don’t have a solution, yet this is an unfortunate fact. Maybe we should bring back the days of having to own property to vote. It sounds very out there, yet has its merits. Property owners may not all have superior IQ’s, yet a person must have some intellectual vision/acuity to think ahead enough to own property. Also they care more and will be more informed on issues.
I am being somewhat facetious, but look at what is happening and the types “the herd” votes into office.
Believes the Bible literally.
I hope she doesn’t have a FR account :-P
It should be that you should serve your country for 2 years in some capacity (military or social service — even tax-collectors, road builders, helping the aged etc.) and THEN you get the right to vote. If not, you don’t get to vote — you get all the other rights, but voting depends on you proving that you have the responsibility and experience
This is a good line of reasoning for winnowing out the completely uninformed and/or illegal counterfeit voting.
Awww, I was going to make a comment about Cow Hampshire. (That’s what a lot of people called it when I lived there.) You shouldn’t have said “herd instinct.” :)
“It means they don’t seek Him inside an organization and/or a building”
Amen, to that brother.
100% agreement
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.