FWIW.....my opinion on the primaries.....

[BooScout]

....And I had this opinion long before this election season.

1. The primary season is too long.
2. Why can't we have all the primaries and caucuses on the same day? Or at least over a one or two week period?
3. Waaaaaay too much money is spent on campaigns.
4. Waaaaaay too many commercials are put on tv.
5. There are waaaaaaaaaay too many debates. Keep it at 3 or 4 to cover the main issues.


The above can also apply to the General Election. When candidates are spending this amount of money to run for a political office....something is seriously wrong with the system.

[andyrowe]

1. So, do you think Hillary should be asking for more debates?

This is the most compressed primary schedule in our party's history. It's spread out so the candidates have an oppurtunity to actually travel to the states.

[BooScout]

7. why travel?

With the internet, TV, radio, newspapers, etc and the small precentage of voters who actually ever see a candidate in person is it all really justified cost wise?

[Renew Deal]

2. I agree with 1, 3, 4

Disagree on national primary and debates. A national primary favors the candidate with the biggest name and most money. There would have been no Clinton under that system.

[Flabbergasted]

3. I agree except I think they should have like 3 or 4

eight hour debates in which any political question under the sun is allowed.

Lets see how these guys stand up under real pressure. :evilgrin:

[CK_John]

4. We need to convince 50 states to give up all that media income and we're there. n/t

[Flabbergasted]

6. Most states after S.T. don't usually get a lot of media income.

[libbygurl]

5. Gotta agree with you on all these things. Too expensive, too long primary...

...season. I'm all for one-day national primaries, and primaries should all be closed, no caucuses. That way, the other party can't game the system for their purposes.

[cd3dem]

8. the problem is republicans who cross over to nominate our candidate & the media that crowns a KING!

[HeraldSquare212]

9. I'm for a shorter season, but a one-day primary favors establishment candidates.

I'm also for a shorter GE season. I don't know how other countries enforce it - I guess in parliametary countries, there's no set date so there can't be long campaigning beforehand; the PM pulls the trigger and there's an election in three months.

[hedgehog]

10. A one day primary doesn't give people a chance to look over the candidates.

I would be very interested in seeing a recent poll of New York and California to see who people claim to have voted for. I bet Obama would be up several points from the actual result as people have changed their minds!

[robbedvoter]

12. I'm from New York. Seen, heard everything I needed to know about both

[robbedvoter]

11. Adding mine to yours: No caucuses (vote secret, direct, equal?)

No delegates - popular vote picks the candidate - convention - merely a party to celebrate
national primary day - sometimes between February and May - holliday
The debates - in the month leading to Primary Day
general:
Election day - a holliday
Electoral college - scrap it - popular vote
No paperless machines

[BooScout]

13. Nix the party.....

Why should we pay for a party? Unless of course I am invited.

[robbedvoter]

14. But the balloons - we need those balloons - and indoors - you're right!

[Big Blue Marble]

15. I wonder if you would be saying this if Hillary had the momentum.

I think the primary season is about right. I think the distribution of the primaries
is what is wrong. Having nearly one-half the states voting on one day is exhausting
for the candidates.

I would prefer regional primaries. Dividing the country up into six to eight regions
and have each regional election be at least 2 weeks apart. We need this amount
of time to access all the candidates.

Your position favors front runners way too heavily.

I do agree about the debates. 20+ is too many. About 10-12 works for me.

The money and the ads are a fact of our political life. We can deal with the ads as long
as they do not go too negative.

[BooScout]

16. My reasons are in case you really care...

Is the fact that a few years ago I moved to the UK. I have had a chance to see their MUCH shorter 'politcal season' and the fact that they spend a hell of a lot less money on campaigns than we Americans do.

Politcal ads are not prevasive on the tv either. Granted it's a parlimentary system but I think the American politcal process regarding campaigns has gotten out of hand.

Pretty much I don't think we need over a year (and people have been campaigning that and much longer) to listen to campaign speeches ad nauseum......and we certainly don't need to be spending millions upon millions of dollars for a political campaign.

[Big Blue Marble]

17. I do care and I agree with some of your points.

I think the whole campaign is way too long. it pretty much starts right after inauguration and
kicks into high gear right after the off year elections. Way too soon.
I am just not sure what we do to change it. It seems a sign of our times.

I have been for campaign finance reform for over 30 years.

I am pleased that small donors have a lot more say now with internet technologies.
Both Obama and Clinton has shown this month that small donors have much more clout
then ever. With Supreme Court decisions saying campaign finance reform restricts the
free speech of the big donors and corporations, this may be the way to level the field.

The last 30 years of attempted election reforms show how difficult it is to manage
all the aspects of campaigning and elections legislatively. It has been a process of
one step forward and two steps back.

I am not optimistic we will see much improvement any time soon.
Bringing back the fairness doctrine would be a start.

I would like to see the changes to the primary system I suggested upthread.

It would be a little more humane for the candidates and their teams.
At this point, everyone has to be exhausted.