Does anyone else here NOT like the primary process?

[Darth_Ole]

I hate the fact that the media chooses the nominee after only a couple weeks are up. And I hate even more the fact that mathematically the thing can be over before voters have a decision. Those states in late spring might as well not even have a voice if the thing is over by then.

I don't like caucuses either, because you can't really tell who really places where. When the candidates below 15% get split up into groups, then it suddenly becomes, "Well, who's better out of these two?"

It's not exciting anymore, because these things don't go down to the wire. Once you pick up momentum right before the first couple primaries, it's over, most of the time.

:(

[arewethereyet]

1. do you have an alternative ?

the process allows for a tight contest start to finish, its up to the candidates to make that happen if they can.

[Leilani]

4. I would prefer that the process not be so frontloaded

because the primary season has been excellent for Dems..
Bush is getting pummeled...his numbers are dropping...
Dems are getting their message out & the country is listening..
The candidates each get better & better..
The longer it goes on, leaves less time for Bush to go on attack
Also, giving more people an opportunity to vote, makes them feel part
of the process, & more likely to come aboard, regardless of winner.

Just my Opinion...I don't see a down side.

[arewethereyet]

11. I use caution regardng Bush's poll numbers

its only natural that they be going down now and he has hardly campaigned.

Once the candidate is settled and the hoopla dies down, tht GOP will start spending that money and things will change, possibly dramatically.

[texasmom]

12. Leilani-

Those are some of the very same things I've been thinking about today. Bush's numbers are going down because of the daily assaults from the various Dems in the race. I think a longer primary season works for us. I also think that more people have gotten excited and felt part of the process and now they're just irrelevant.

I think a system of regional primaries might be better, but weeks separating the primaries, not *a* week.

[dansolo]

16. I disagree - it should be more frontloaded

I don't like the idea of a few individual states concentrating all of the attention and coverage, and dictating how the rest of the race will turn out. I think that there should be multiple primaries on the first date, and that they should be geographically diverse.

[SoCalDem]

19. I have a solution, but it's too logical for them to do it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=273686
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-04 08:02 AM
Original message
The primary schedule REALLY needs to change..It's way past due


As a Californian, it aggravates me that by the time that people in MY state get to choose, there will be fewer candidates..

I really feel that the largest population centers should at least have a chance at the full slate of possibilities..

I would love to see the country split up logically, so that the BEST national candidate would be chosen, instead of "the one with more money".. More money does not guarantee much.(ex. GWB ..)

With TV everywhere now, there is no reason for the "Iowa/New Hamsphire experience" that all the candidates feel compelled to have..

The country should be broken into 6 regions...Northeast....Southeast...Northern mid...Southern Mid...Northwest..Southwest..

This would include large population centers in EACH grooup, and would include "regional differences"..

They would need to do these weekly, starting in early Feb.. I would start in the "Mid" areas, and then alternate SW.SE.NE.NW (it could be changed every election cycle..)

Something like this would show which candidates were actually the favorites..not "what's left over"..

The candidates would probably prefer it too, since they could concentrate their campaigning in one area at a time and not have to slingshot all over the place

It would also be over in 6 wks, and whoever emerged could truly claim to be the "overall" favorite..

[eileen_d]

2. There are some specific things I don't like

1) I don't like how some states like Iowa and New Hampshire have more influence than others. Part of this is just regional prejudice on my part. But the specific part I detest about the state-by-state processs is that the voters in those states get so much more exposure to the candidates, while late primary states (like mine - Montana) may not get visits at all. (Of course, there's always C-SPAN and the debates, but it's not the same as face time.)

2) I don't believe in this whole "media annointing" theory - election coverage is about covering candidates who win the most votes, and people can always turn the TV off if they don't like it. However I think it is a CRIME that CNN and other media are calling winners based solely on exit polls and/or 3% results. That is complete bullshit.

As for caucuses, I've never been to one and don't know much about them, so I won't comment.

[arewethereyet]

7. well, someone has to be first and tradition IS tradition

the simple facts are these, its just too costly to have everyone campaign for 6 months worth of primaries unless the electorate is just that torn.

I suppose you could rotate states but that sounds like the makings of a cat roundup.

If the media screwed up on these predictions they would end them. As it is they have grown more conservative in their use after 2000.

While cauci are odd, they represent to me the most real form of political committment. You literally have to 'stand with your choice' and cannot hide behind a little curtain. There ought to be more courage demanded of us citizens, it would breed commitment which is sorely lacking.

But thats just me... never said I was normal.

[eileen_d]

9. Well, the "tradition" argument is a total loser with me!

Personally, after having watched this election season closer than any other, I am interested in the origins and evolution of the Party and U.S. election processes. There's no reason any of the primary process needs to be set in stone, and I'm incline to believe it hasn't always been "this way."

I don't think rotating the order of states year after year is a good idea either. But why not group several states for each primary? That way, the candidates might hit more states instead of camping in NH for months.

[stromboli]

3. primary colors the vote

I'd personally like to see a democratic election day where all the states vote at the same time, without exit polls or televised results until the voting is closed. This would give everyone a fair shot without one or two states giving a big momentum boost to one or two candidates. Truth be told, the blitz of calling people at home and mailing flyers has very little effect. Televise the debates and vote and be done with it. The big contributors of funding / support often wait until they have a clear frontrunner before committing anyway, so get it over with early and dump all the resources into one (or even the top 3) candidates. It would also cut down on all the infighting, though that doesn't seem to have much lasting negative impact. The only bad thing is that we wouldn't have the opportunity to get to know the candidates as well, but that could be accomplished through a series of early debates, and the frontrunners could then focus their campaigning not on fighting each other but on the republicans. They'd still visit the different states to drum up support but it would be much more focused and productive.

[eileen_d]

8. Those are all excellent ideas.

I also think if all of the Democrats voted on the same day, there would be more motivation for them to watch the debates to get to know the candidates, rather than waiting for results from other states.

[alexwcovington]

14. That would ruin it for rural states

Candidates would immediately jump to the more populous states rather than going through the hassle of visiting a wider set.

[rugger]

5. I agree

I think the primary process is anachronistic, and should be revised in place of a regional caucus, divide the country into 5 or 6 regions.

[eileen_d]

6. Welcome to DU rugger!

:hi: :bounce:

[alexwcovington]

10. It needs some overhauling

But the biggest problem is the way the media treats the process

[mmonk]

13. pretty much my sentiment

By the time it comes to my state, it will be over. I will not have been able to participate by actually casting a vote that helps decide the outcome. So the primary is not for all of us to participate in (other than trying to influence people in other states).

[stromboli]

15. last states with no say

that's why i'd really like to see a shift from spending money travelling to states, to having televised debates. Make it like the NFL where once a week you get to see two candidates debate each other. If it were done properly, we'd get to know all the candidates much better before ballot time.

[Clark Can WIN]

18. Stromboli, great minds and all that...............

:toast:

[Clark Can WIN]

17. I think they should be held all on the same day, just like the GE

Mid April would be good. Cull the herd by setting up debates on a kind of NFL season & then playoffs kind of model. Have like 5 debates with everyone then run a fair and proportional nationwide poll. Polling under 5 %? Outa the debates. Keep running with that till you get down to 3 or 4 at the most. Everybody has the primary together.