Over the years, I've come to realize, the issue of "which candidate" is totally irrelevant to me...

[Journeyman]

By the time California votes June 7, 17 primaries will have already been held in 40 states. The decision will have been made long before the parade makes it out here.

The decision will have been made for me by the good people in the likes of places such as Iowa, Utah, South & North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Ohio, Puerto Rico, Florida, Missouri, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Arkansas.

Yeah. It's just an illusion, that I have a voice in the decision. Totally worthless process so far as I'm concerned.

So really, the decision has little to do with me and my beliefs. Unless I want to give money. Which places me in the odd position of looking at Citizens United with a slightly jaundiced view -- adamantly opposed to the concept, regrettably convinced money is the sole option open for people in States relegated to the rear to have an impact.

Tell me that doesn't suck hind wind.


* * *


The Democratic Primary process bypasses those of us who must vote late in the season. Regardless the candidate, the process itself is stacked against us here in the "Golden State."

Instead of the present, flawed process, where people in Iowa of all places have a disproportionate influence on who leaves the race early and who's seen as a "frontrunner," I favor dividing the nation into 6 electoral districts instead and the choice of which district should vote first would rotate among them, so every 24 years each of us would have an opportunity to vote first in the Presidential primary.

All states in an electoral district would have their primaries on the same day. This way, campaigns would focus on a select geographic region -- costs would be lower, there wouldn't be as much travel required, and the media buys would be more focused as well, since neighboring states would be addressed at the same time.

There'd be the added benefit that citizens of each district could expect (indeed, demand) that politicians address the regional issues of their concern as well as the national issues, thereby denying the candidates the opportunity to hide behind national platitudes instead of answering specific questions important to a select electorate.

If the primaries were held every 3 weeks, the primary season could be over in some 3 to 4 months, which might help focus every voter's attention earlier in the process.

But it'll probably never happen. Too many vested interests with too much at stake in the present, crippled system.

[still_one]

1. Not a bad idea, though it won't happen. I would also like them to get rid of the electoral college

in the general election, but that would mean the republican racist Southern Strategy wouldn't work, and that won't happen either

ah well, c'est, la vie

[napi21]

2. I question why the primary voting isn't all done on the same day everywhere?

Why not just designate a date? First Tuesday in March of the election year. That way every vote would matter, and the constant campaigning would be over much sooner. Certainly my fondest dream!

[djean111]

3. Because of the money gravy train. And because the party leaders have

already decided who they want.