I just realized why it seems I'm left out of the primary process this election

[Inchworm]

I guess the Primaries have been fine working as is for years and years. I'm sure the people of North Carolina have just become used to waiting to toss in a late vote that usually means nothing. I left Carolina when I was 18 and never came back until recently, so I didn't realize how bad off the 7 states and 2 US territories had it during the primaries.

May/June States in order: Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, Puerto Rico.

I'm probably beating a dead horse, but, damn, I want to play citizen too. I'm trying to stop wandering, so I moved back to my hometown and don't want to have to move again just to participate.

Someone mentioned here a week or so ago that this topic comes up often. Is there really a concern to change it, or is that just wishful thinking?

:shrug:

:rant:

:banghead:

[groovedaddy]

1. It's up to your state BUT move that primary date up too far and you may incur

the wrath of the DNC!

ex-Asheville, NC resident.

[Inchworm]

3. I thought the DNC makes the dates

States can choose to alter the date and get hosed. Maybe I read that wrong.

:hi:

[groovedaddy]

5. DNC does not choose the dates - it's up to the states

But, ala Florida and Michigan, the DNC can choose not to seat the delegates at the convention.

[sandnsea]

2. Unless you want big money to buy the election

Somebody will always have to go last. We need to spread the process out evenly, over 3 months or so, and there will still be states that go last.

[Inchworm]

4. I understand someone has to go last

why not Iowa? :sarcasm:

:shrug:

[Florida22ndDistrict]

14. RE: Unless you want big money to buy the election

The longer the campaign, the larger the bill. A single day, national primary would require far fewer funds, and voters would actually get to vote for who they want for a change. The candidate that the people want would actually win. You could even eliminate the “Dem for a Day” votes, if both parties held a single day national primary together. Sure it would be hard to raise as much money for a campaign as they do in the current system. In my opinion that would be a good thing. Candidates might even have to rely on public financing for a change. Oh my what a tragedy!

[TexasObserver]

6. The party needs to get the primaries all done in three months.

By April, they should all be over. Dragging them out made sense when candidates flew commercially in turbo props, but Geez Louise, it's 2008.

[Inchworm]

8. I agree

I think it is due for a revamp.

[TexasObserver]

12. Four states a week for 13 weeks would do it. January - March.

And take away the monopoly Iowa and New Hampshire have on the start. Tell them they can go the first day the party allows the primaries or caucuses, but they have to share that date with two other states, both in other parts of the country.

I'm sick of those two having far more influence than they deserve. And if they don't like it and want to move theirs up, bounce their delegates.

[ContinentalOp]

7. I think they should be moved around randomly each year.

I am happy that my primary vote mattered for the first time in my voting life since CA moved up our primaries. But this will obviously become a problem if all of the states move their primaries and jockey for position.

[Inchworm]

9. A agree with rotating the smaller states among theirselves

and perhaps even moving the larger states among theirselves.

There is also the tradition of Iowa, NH etc that needs to stay intact I think.

:hi:

[Independent-Voter]

10. I'd be fine with that, and have the primaries start no earlier than April to boot. There's no reason

that elections should last this damn long.

[elixir]

11. Just like the "talking stain", I find your sig so adorable I can't concentrate on your post. Is the

monkey's name Dove?

[Inchworm]

13. Focus

:rofl:

Naw, dove is my GF :)