Do you think we should redo the nomination process?

[TheBigDemo]

I think it is horrible that only about 10% of the population chooses our nominee for the General Election. So I think we should change the system.

Here is how I would do the nomination system.

Step one: Each US Congressional district would be assigned a number 1-20. So 5% of the Congressional Districts would be given number 1, 5% number 2, 5% number 3. . . 5% number 20. The numbers would be appointed randomly.

Step two: Numbers 1-20 would be randomly drawn from a hat. The order that they are drawn is the order they will vote for the candidates.

Step three: We hold 5% of the elections once every two weeks. This gives the candidates 2 weeks to run around the chosen Congressional districts.

Step Four: we have a Caucus and a Primary for each Congressional District. Half the delegates are divided by way of Caucus and half divided by way of popular vote.

Step Five: The popular vote election is not released to the public until after the next election has taken place as to not bias the next election.

What do you think? Should we bring an end to Iowa and NH, ALWAYS deciding the nominee for us. Damn it, I would like my vote to count once in while. How about you?

[MAlibdem]

1. Your system is ok

It won't work very well in larger states b/c air time might have to be bought twice in some media outlets.

My system (which I've been thinking about some).

1. Divide the country into five regions with ten states each.

2. Have ten weeks of primary voting, with 1 state from each region voting each week.

3. The week of voting for each state will rotate with each election.

edit:tired and a little stoned, writing hard

[truhavoc]

3. Here is an idea

1.) Put a limit of 1 million dollars of fundraising/spending on ALL campaigns, with 4 television spots alloted per state per month.
2.) Supply each campaign with an intern staff of say 25 people MAX.
3.) Have a large general primary for all states at the same time, say in late April.
4.) After April, all money not spent is lost and then a new limit of 1 million and 25 staffers is imposed for the general election.

This removes the problem of states being influenced by the decisions of other primaries. It makes it easier for the people that aren't extremely wealthy to get involved. Truly insprires creativity and intellegence, not money and influence. I'm sure there are other things to be done but this is a good start.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. How about, states get to decide when they want their primaries...

Iowa and NH are powerful because they choose to be. Other states could be powerful as well if they wanted to.

[JI7]

4. iowa and new hampshire will be first

because they are considered swing states and the party decides how the primary process will work. whichever party changes the sytem and takes away iowa and new hampshires first in caucus and primary status will lose those states votes in the general election. and all the candidates said they support keeping iowa and new hampshire the first. although dean has said he thinks the iowa caucus system should be changed to prevent people from influencing others to vote different ways during the caucus.

[jfxgillis]

5. Why the whining THIS time?

By next Tuesday, voters in 30 states including almost all the Blue states--who have a RIGHT to assert prominence over the Red states in deciding the Democratic nominee--will have had a voice/vote that counted, which is an unusual lot.

The Primaries FOR once worked to the party's benefit (possibly by fluke!!) instead of bloodying everybody and weakening the eventual winner, so why fix it if it ain't broke?

[DjTj]

6. I just realized something about all these primary-reforming plans...

...I think part of the reason for the primary season is that it helps a candidate build up to the general election.

The reality is that TV ads, fundraising, and other money-related things that we don't really like are very important for the general election.

Having a succession of states lets candidates try out different things in different parts of the country and allows some head-to-head contests in battleground states like we'll have in Ohio or Missouri in the fall as well as broad battles like Super Tuesday which resembles the General Election atmosphere.

The primary season in general has been tested over time, and I can only assume that it works reasonably well. Perhaps reform should start with the General Election...

[Lexingtonian]

7. No.

Iowa is quite prototypical as a Midwestern state- it's hard to get more conventionally Middle American than there, niceness culture and slightly liberal-leaning and all that. New Hampshire is conservative and cranky- they like putting candidates through the wringer. They counterbalance temperamentally. The pieties that get a substance-free candidate through one of the two won't get her/him through the other.

They are also quite small- this at a point in the process when all the campaigns are for the most part still pretty small. That gives seemingly minor candidates a good shot at achieving sufficient exposure.

The only seriously wrong thing with the two, as I see it, is that neither of them has sufficiently large numbers of non-white caucus or primary voters.

And low primary turnout is evidence that much of the population is willing to let others do the preliminary work, trusting that a few million voters nationwide who feel invested enough will select the most relevant and convincing of the lot on each side.

Of course, it's always the process that is wrong and unfair. It's never that your favorite candidate wasn't smart enough or capable enough or a second-rater in the game, unable to deliver material that persuades enough of this small but nationally quite representative set of voters to vote for her or him. The Electoral College never seemed a problem before November 2000 to a lot of people and in the past year doesn't seem to strike people as worth altering again.

[izzie]

8. Yes

n/t