Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
National primaries, on the other hand, are a terrible idea. No system is going to be perfect, and there's definitely a lot of room for improvement with our primaries as they are, but the reason we don't have national primaries (and shouldn't) is because it's important to give the candidates the opportunity to make personal appearances in a wide variety of places. National primaries would make it more difficult for voters to get to know the candidates through anything other than sound bites.
|
I agree...a national primary is a terrible idea...personal connections with candidates would be lost.
I do like the idea of consolidating primaries together on no more than four dates, a month apart...particularly the Delaware plan:
Quote:
Under the Delaware Plan, the states would be put into four groups according to population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-sized states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four consolidated primaries would occur on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning in March and ending in June. Although having valuable benefits, the main disadvantage to this plan is candidates having to compete in 12 states in the very first primary, which makes retail politicking harder, and the fact the states are always in the same order.
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=871
|