Americans frustrated by influence wielded by Iowa, New Hampshire

[ckramer]

Source: YN

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — All eyes may be on Iowa and New Hampshire, but many of them are rolling.

Despite efforts to evict the two states from the front of the presidential calendar, both managed to hang on for another election cycle that culminates with the Iowa caucuses on Thursday and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. As a year of media attention reaches its crescendo, voters in other states are saying enough is enough.

According to national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two nominations.

"They have way too much — WAY too much — say," said Kevin Thomas of Tacoma, Wash. "California's a big state and they don't have any say, and Iowa's not even half the size of California. It really makes me as a voter wonder what's going on."

Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the current system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.

"I think they should take turns, maybe take it to a small state like Rhode Island that doesn't have a whole lot of voting power," Thomas said.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-early-states-resented;_ylt=AgXB3iiHsPhOtXAPfW9gDKqs0NUE

---

It's a good idea to take turns.

I personally think that Iowa and New Hampshire always go first in picking next US president is absurd. It's completely undemocratic.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Yep--frustrating is the word. Should be regional and take turns.

[taylor egv420106]

26. Why should they all take turns?

It makes perfect sense that someone lead off. The focused attention in a few states allows actual legitimate news coverage of the candidates.

[Radio_Lady]

34. Here's my answer. National Primary Day (preferably on a weekend)

What makes Tuesday the winner, let alone the two smallish Northern states -- with lots of weather related problems in winter -- that take over commentary for MONTHS in advance of January?

[taylor egv420106]

36. First off I suggest you look at all the facts

The only reason that they had to pick the dates they did was because so many states AGREED TO AN ORIGINAL TIMEFRAME and then tried to renege on their agreement and move their own dates in violation of the rules they agreed to.

First of all its not even Tuesday its Thursday. Second of all what difference does where the state is located make, or are you claiming that you WOULDNT be crying about what makes "two smalling SOUTHERN states" an issue? The commentary will happen REGARDLESS of where it happens. It seems that the only real reason that most people have for crying about the Iowa caucuses is that its not them.

[joeglow3]

141. That and...

...apparently, it is better to have 2 states with next to no minority populations decide the president.

[Radio_Lady]

148. Good point. Few minorities -- that will tend to skew things quite a bit.

Now and in the future.

[Popol Vuh]

175. All the facts?

So what you're saying is you believe two tiny and largely racially monolithic states should every single election be the ones in the spot light setting the tone? You're saying that is fair? If so I think that's rather republican of you; hording everything and criticizing anybody seeking equality.

As far as my opinion goes I think that the primaries should be done no different than how the main election is done - everybody at the same time.

n/t

[aquart]

140. I guess if you'll brave the snow, you're a serious candidate?

[JDPriestly]

83. It should not always be the same states.

States should be divided into three or four regions and then one state from each region should go first. But it should not always be the same state. For example, one time it could be Iowa, the next Illinois, and then Nebraska or Michigan. In the south it could be S.C. one time and Georgia another time.

[mtnester]

2. If it is close at all, they will stay in until March madness

because that is when the rest of us chose.

At least I hope so...if Iowa and NH play out as close as I think, the top 3 will be in a dogfight until after the bigger dance in March

[Siyahamba]

44. February Madness, now

Half of the states will have voted by February 5.

[mtnester]

149. Oh they will wait until Ohio votes

March

:)

[Purveyor]

3. It is a 'piss-poor' way to choose the nominees, indeed! eom

[maxanne]

4. one thing

not even being discussed in this topic is MONEY.

One of the best reasons for NH and Iowa being first is the fact that they're small states with cheap media buys. If California became the first state - it ensures that only very wealthy corporate funded candidates would be able to enter the race. Maybe that's what folks want - I don't.

The system is seriously flawed - but to talk about changing it without acknowledging the reality of money isn't realistic.


And since when do we PICK the presidents? I don't remember President Buchanan or President McCain - both winners of the NH primary.

[iamjoy]

27. Always The Same Excuse

You have a point about the money. But how fair is it that big states like California and Florida become good for nothing but our money. It's "wham, bam, thank you ma'am."

Of course the big states are more expensive media buys. And a national primary would make the money disparity for candidates even worse. I don't favor a regional primary either, it would favor a candidate with appeal for whatever candidate was from that region but may not have national appeal. Besides, what if it is your region's turn and the race isn't competitive (like 1996 for Democrats or 2004 for Republicans)?

I think if the DNC and RNC are going to impose rules, they ought to structure the whole primary. It's ridiculous annointing four states and leaving the rest to fend for themselves, it leaves very little time between the early states and the "Super Tuesday" for fundraising and only encourages voters in other states to be sheep rather than getting involved. It also leads to a ridiculous game of leap frog.

No, four states get to go in January. Six more in February. Fifteen in March. States could be arranged by size (largest last) or voter participation in previous election. Yes, arranging it by size means states like California, Florida and Texas go last, but at least I'd feel it was fair in a primary season that wasn't too compact and that considered all the voters of all the states.

[taylor egv420106]

37. Try looking at reality

They dont leave other states to 'fend for themselves'

The rules THAT WERE VOTED ON BY ALL STATES say when each of the states can have their primaries.

Newsflash YOUR STATE agreed to this,

[iamjoy]

47. I Didn't Vote On This

And I wouldn't have agreed to it had I been given an opportunity. My state party hosed us on this one.

[taylor egv420106]

53. I dont know where you get the idea

That every Democrat is needed to vote on every single aspect of every single rule of operation for the party. Its simply not the case. If you have a problem with your state party take it up with them. Dont claim that its unfair of the party to follow rules agreed to by your own representatives.

[iamjoy]

72. It's Called Collective Punishment

and it is not a very democratic or Democratic ideal.

[taylor egv420106]

101. What are you talking about?

Know what? I didnt vote for a lot of laws, but my representatives did. Sniveling and crying about how since I personally didnt vote on them then they shouldn't count is idiotic. We cannot have everyone in the world hold a vote on everything. Its called life.

[iamjoy]

127. Collective Punishment

stripping all Florida Democratic voters of their right to have a say in the primary because of a decision by their state party/legislature is collective punishment.

I am not sniveling, but you are trying to cast responsibility on me for something my legislatures and state party (and the DNC did). I am merely pointing out the fact that I had no opportunity to provide a voice in the matter, or at best, a highly indirect say. Yet, I have been stripped of an opportunity to have any say in the presidential primary. It's not whining, it's a fact.

And fact is, I am not donating any more money to the DNC, the FDP or any of the Presidential candidates as a result of the mess. My money is going to local candidates.

[taylor egv420106]

133. Oh Please

The fact is the rules were set. Florida agreed to the rules and then tried to break the rules and you are crying that its unfair to hold Florida accountable for their rules violations.

[iamjoy]

150. Not At All

Florida did agree to the rules and then break them. To not enforce any sanctions would make rules pointless. I understand that. This is why I do not solely blame the DNC for our loss of votes.

But it still sucks that millions of voters lose their opportunity to have votes count because of the actions of a few. It doesn't seem very Democratic (or democratic).

[joeglow3]

159. I would just drop it

This individual is simply an Iowa or NH resident who cannot come up with an intelligent reason why we would want to put so much emphasis on these 2 states, so they resort to comments like "put up or shut up" to justify their view.

State representatives supported it so we should just be quiet? Is taylor egv420106 just quiet when people tell them that our representatives have outlawed gay marriage? It is amazing how taylor's on a progressive web site and advocates changing laws that are outdated, but clings to the SAME philosophies as Republicans on an issue like this.

[harun]

61. There are groups with way too much say in who the nominees

are and they are not IA, and NH. They are big media, big business, and a really bad primary system.

We need time limits on the campaigning and the media coverage more than we need to change IA and NH going first. I would rank the election reforms needed like this:

1. No corporate donations, individual only and capped at something like 5000.
2. Campaigning and fundraising only allowed one year before an election.
3. Media coverage cut off 2 weeks before the election. Can only mention voting times, places and not do any analysis/cheerleading.
4. ...
5. ...
99. Worry about who goes first in the primary.

[taylor egv420106]

28. Thats the exact issue

A lot of the "democrats" on this forum are all against one state getting the attention, but if it were California or New York getting millions of dollars in Ad revenue all you would hear from the media is how GREAT having one or two states get the attention.

People complaining about this are little more than petulant children upset that they didn't get the color truck they wanted for christmas.

[nachoproblem]

85. Oh please.

Sure, everything matters except the things that probably work out in your favor. Or maybe they don't favor you. It's not as if that makes it right, regardless. Fuck whatever the media says. Nobody should be first, not California, not Iowa, not anybody. We somehow manage to count the whole country's vote on general election day, but we can't get it together for the primaries, or that would somehow make it unfair?

See, you must have noticed that most Americans like to think they can be a little bit crafty in the primaries, to pick somebody they think is more likely to win. And you must have also noticed that's it's pretty easy for the media to declare who that winner will be, far ahead of the game, when only a small sample of the results are in. Yet, this supposedly doesn't matter. Everything else the media does to cheerlead or interfere in the process matters oh so much, but of course this doesn't. Because whatever you choose to care about is self-evidently so high minded and sage that it makes your farts smell like a summer's day. Good. Then when the next fascist goon is elected, you can bitch all day about how immature you think everybody else is while he takes that truck you think so highly of and rams it up your ass.

I wouldn't even address Freepers with that kind of pompous crap.

[taylor egv420106]

102. EXCEPT SOMEONE IS ALWAYS FIRST

Even if we had every states primary the same day
a) the money and special interest groups would EXPLODE exponentially
b) SOMEONE WOULD BE FIRST. The timezones and the fact that poll times vary from state to state would guarantee that some states would start first and finish first. Then you would undoubtedly be crying about that.

[nachoproblem]

130. Why so?

I've never had that complaint about election day before. The early returns might influence some people, but that didn't appear to deter anybody in the last election. Plus, I haven't had anybody taken off the ballot before I got to the polls on GE day.

This whole crybaby name-calling thing strikes me as weaksauce anyway. The whole point of democracy is for people to advocate their own opinions and interests, otherwise we would just have a monarch or dictator and accept their decision about what's best. Pretending to be above it all is bunk.

Edit: Since a number of people have pointed out that a random rotation is more fair, that may be so. It all deserves consideration. It certainly isn't a matter of, "What we have is the best of all possible worlds because it was chosen before you were old enough to vote, in a process you never heard of."

[taylor egv420106]

135. What do you mean

Why is it so? Is there a part of time zones that you dont understand?

[Le Taz Hot]

115. And as it stands now

California is nothing more than an A.T.M. No thanks. If they don't want to campaign here, then don't come begging for money here.

[Selatius]

169. That's an argument in favor of campaign finance reform, not keeping the current junk in place.

If you really want to talk about change in this country, you need to talk about money. If the government has enough money to kill, it obviously has enough money to fund elections without private cash.

[cascadiance]

5. I'm actually thankful that Iowa's first since their caucus system isn't "Dieboldable"!

If we had other states first, with just traditional voting setups instead of caucuses, then it would ratchet up the e-voting corruption schemes that have been going that much more. With Iowa in front, the election fraud people have that much more obstacles in their way in trying to swing the primaries the evil entities' ways.

For that reason, I'm glad that Iowa's first. If we could clean up our voting systems more in subsequent elections, or if there are similar systems to the caucuses in other states, I'd be open to moving it around more. Caucuses also force voters to talk to other voter more about their choices, and therefore hopefully become more educated in the process of their votes. What better time to have that sort of process than the first election gathering, since voters really want to feel more educated (or at least they should feel more want to be educated) on their choices. A caucus system in another state might be helpful in moving it around some.

[Itchinjim]

6. I can't speak for NH, but this Iowan sez:

Tough shit.

[Diane R]

14. And this Washingtonian says we're sick of this attitude.

[StClone]

17. I am sure if Washington were first you'd get manured.

So What would Washington do Different than Iowa of NH?

[Diane R]

40. Washington doesn't have to be first. I'm just sick of Iowa and NH deciding before anyone else.

[taylor egv420106]

29. What attitude?

Perhaps you think they "attitude" should be Yes sir may I have another?

NO THANKS.

[dbackjon]

65. And this Arizonan agrees with the holier than thou shit from Iowa

Iowa is too white, too evangelical and too rural to be given such a big role.

What the fuck makes Iowans so special that they get all the attention from candidates.


The parties need to wise up, and tell Iowa and NH to take a hike.

[DU9598]

73. Complaining does nothing

This thread is devoid of any realistic solutions. Iowa and New Hampshire's political parties were smart and developed and cultivated what they are now benefitting from. It's a bit bogus, to say the least, for others to now demand to step in their spots without any of the hard work and infrastructure in place to take the lead.

[iburl]

80. Hard Work and Infrasctructure?

That's the problem. Democracy shouldn't be this difficult... every state knows how to hold an election (except possibly FL and OH).
The whole caucus thing is ridiculous.

[Connonym]

91. This "born an Iowan" says don't be too sweeping with your categorization of the people of Iowa

First of all, I agree that it's bullshit that some states have more leverage when it comes to primaries, the same way I believe that fucking Florida and fucking Ohio shouldn't be the deciding factors in the really, really outdated practice of the electoral college.

I object to your description of Iowa. It's not even like Iowa is solidly red. Presidential elections can go either way and the governor is a Democrat. Easy on the stereotypes cowboy. Object all you want to the unfairness of the primary system but you're running a close line on being a bigot with your comments about the people of Iowa.

I still maintain that we need to have a single-day primary, no exit polls and nobody calling winners on the east coast while the west coast is still voting. As for the general election, the same thing, no polls, no declaring winners before the final vote is cast, one single set of voting rules that is the same in all states and no more fucking electoral college. No one state should have any more power than another. No one vote should be of any more value than another vote no matter where you live. Not because Iowans are hicks or people from where you're from are bigots but because it's the fair way to do it. All votes should be exactly equal.

[Blue Gardener]

95. Have you ever been to Iowa?

This is one Iowan who is fed up with the stereotypes on this discussion board. I would invite you for a visit, but it seems your mind is already made up about our lovely state.
Personally, I would be happy if the MSM and the pollsters would back off a bit and give us a little breathing room.

[dbackjon]

124. Yes, I have been to Iowa many times - I grew up in Illinois

And I know many Iowans. And I stand by my description.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. Did I say it was all-white, all-rural, all-evangelical? No. I said it was too-white, etc - meaning that it does not represent the nation as a whole.

[DU9598]

139. Check out the website

To see all of the great things happening in Iowa and Des Moines, check out

Lots of interesting stories on development in the downtown area of DSM, the suburbs, and in the metro areas around the state.

[taylor egv420106]

103. I challenge you

Name one state that could go first where there would be absolutely nothing to complain about that state. Put up or shut up.

[dbackjon]

125. There are none. But that is not the point

The point is that it should be a rotating system. Iowa and New Hampshire have had their turn. Stop being greedy and egotistical, and let other states have their chance.


Have your caucus in June for a few cycles, and see what it is like to be marginalized. Until you experience that, your justifications on how great Iowa is are useless.

[taylor egv420106]

136. Are you serious?

You start by your sniveling accusing Iowa of being "too white" and other things. When I call you on your stupidity you cry about how that wasn't the point of your useless rant and then switch to another justification for your whining.

If "that wasn't the point" why did you start with it?

[dbackjon]

153. I didn't switch it - you are not comprehending.

[Chovexani]

145. This NY transplant to AZ agrees

It's bullshit.

[StClone]

15. Can't say anything bad about the South

Or guns but Iowa and New Hampshire can be maligned -- so which candidate would of faired differently in other regions? Dennis (my fav), Biden? Edwards?.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[taylor egv420106]

30. Who won your primary?

Put up or shut up.

[iamjoy]

51. My State Didn't Really Have A Say

because in 2004 our primary was after at least half the candidates had already dropped out of the running.

My state won't have a say at all this go 'round because of the collective stupidity and stubborness of my state legislature, state party and the DNC.

[taylor egv420106]

56. BULL

Your state had PLENTY of say on the issue. Your own state party representatives had a vote on the rules. You had the same say that others did, you voted for candidates for the office. Arguing that you had no say because candidates dropped out is ludicrous on its face.

[iamjoy]

70. Not Exactly

First of all, as far as my representatives in the state legislature - they are both Republican and I most certainly did not vote for them.

As far as my state party representatives - again, I was not a part of voting them into office because I am not a state committeeperson.

Even if I had been, that is, even if I had voted for any of the people who had a say in the agreemtn, I was not a part of or in agreement to the Primary Rules or my state's stubborn refusal to follow the rules. In fact, after Dean initially upheld the sanctions, I sent an e-mail to our state party chair saying I thought we should caucus.

Why is it ludicrous to say that because candidates dropped out in 2004, I had no say? By the time Florida held its primary (a week after Super Tuesday), 5 of the candidates who'd caucused in Iowa had dropped out of the race. It was down to Kerry, Kucinich and Sharpton. None of the candidates bothered to campaign here before Super Tuesday, meaning there was no ground operation. By Super Tuesday Kerry's nomination was a mathematical certainty.

So, tell me why my argument is silly? Telling me to "put up or shut up" is ridiculous when I have no opportunity to put up.

[taylor egv420106]

104. except if you are a registered Dem

You had an opportunity to elect your party reps.

You may not like who was elected but you had the opportunity and if you failed to participate that is your own fault. Sniveling about how you didnt like what you didnt work for doesnt change anything.

Face facts candidates drop out. Should Iowans cry because a candidate dropped out before the caucus. Your shameless self serving justifications of your sniveling doesnt change anything.

[iamjoy]

128. No, I Didn't

I did not have that opportunity. But, it wouldn't matter if I had. The primary wasn't even an issue when our state chair was elected. I guess it's my fault for not having a crystal ball.

As for candidates dropping out, my reason for bringing that up is because you told me to "put up or shut up" and I was saying how I did not have a real opportunity to "put up" in 2004 because all of the viable candidates except one had dropped out of the race. Sure, that's a fact and it happens, but it also means I had a negligible opportunity to have a say in the matter. That's just a fact and it seems you are trying to negate that fact.

I share in the frustration of our primary situation and think it needs to be changed. We cannot change the media's over emphasis on Iowa or the sheep like nature of many voters, but we can change the primary schedule to provide other states an opportunity to have a say.

[taylor egv420106]

137. Yes you did

But if petulant sniveling like that is all your state has to offer no wonder you arent going first.

[iamjoy]

151. Point of Order

In Florida, only the state committeemen and women and central committee vote for the state executive committee. Any registered Democrat can sign an oath and join their county DEC, but only certain members vote for the state officers.

And if 80% of the people don't think it should always be Iowa and New Hampshire first, are we all sniveling?

Besides telling me I'm sniveling, or that my own state bears responsibility for it's current mess - tell me how it is equitable that in some states voters get to choose from 8 candidates and in other states voters get to choose from 3? It's not just Florida, many other states were in the same boat last time around - 22 states voted after Super Tuesday.

And should inequity not be protested?

[Selatius]

171. It's not equitable, is the point.

If other states have an early say and eliminate five of the possible candidates, your say is at best limited because you would only have a say in the remaining three, not the entire original field of eight. If the people in your state would have voted for one of the five eliminated, then it's not possible if an earlier state eliminated them.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calimary]

156. I suppose this Californian would simply say something about shit, but leave off the

"tough" part.

We've spent FAR too long out here being at the end of the line. The biggest state, the most populous state, a state that has the greatest number of members of the fastest growing "minority" group (Hispanics), a state whose economy ranks eighth in THE WORLD, a state which almost singlehandedly feeds, AND certainly entertains the rest of the nation (if not the world), a state whose Congressional delegation AND whose electoral delegation leads the nation - and election cycle after election cycle we've been pushed to the end of the line. I think it oughta be the other way around for awhile, for a change. I think we Californians should lead this for awhile. Iowa and New Hampshire voters, in which the evangelical and conservative contingents are lopsidedly-well represented, does NOT represent MY thinking, nor that of most of California - which trends more liberal.

With all due respect, I'd like to see that changed. I think California should have FAR more of a say in this. I have for a LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time.

[pipoman]

157. LOL LOL

a state which almost singlehandedly feeds,

Never been outside of CA huh. This is CA ag's big lie. Majority of some crops is not single handedly feeding. Not even close. Drive cross country once then come back to reality.

[Itchinjim]

162. Uh, what orifice did you pull those stats out of?

The biggest state? A state which almost singlehandedly feeds...the rest of the nation (if not the world)? Iowa and New Hampshire voters, in which the evangelical and conservative contingents are lopsidedly-well represented? Perhaps you Californians are too ill informed to be trusted with picking our next candidate. We'll give up our first in nation caucus when you give up your electoral votes. In the mean time for you and all the other whiners and Iowa and NH bashers: Tough shit and deal with it.

[theEmpireNeverEnded]

164. What's really unfair to California

isn't so much that Iowa gets too much influence over the early primary voting every four years, but that California only gets two votes in the Senate - same as Wyoming despite having a population about 60 times greater. That's on every Senate vote, evey year, year after year.

Sure, we should reform the system - get rid of the electoral college, have proportional representation in the Senate, publicly finace all elections, and have a rotating primary sytem, but right now Iowa's caucusing first isn't the worst of our problems.

[Selatius]

170. Keep up that attitude and people will elect somebody else instead of what Iowans chose. n/t

[Itchinjim]

172. Then tough shit for Iowa.

But you won't hear Iowans whining about it.

[Selatius]

174. Yeeaaah, sure. I'll believe that when you bet your house on that statement.

It would only take one Iowan bitching to pop that statement.

[Itchinjim]

176. Well if people here can generalize about Iowans,

then so can I.

[TankLV]

7. How about everone vote the same day, same time...

Everyone is treated equally...

[ccinamon]

12. I agree with you!

Maybe there would be MORE participation if people thought that the candidate they prefer, and the primary votes they cast, really did make a difference!

[harmonicon]

19. now that's crazy talk!

[nachoproblem]

86. Yeah, I had the same thought.

I've obviously lost it. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

[Connonym]

92. Seems to me to be the only fair way

[Le Taz Hot]

116. What a concept!

n/t

[GoddessOfGuinness]

143. But, but...

then people might actually base a large part of their decision on what they feel, rather than being persuaded by media hype...

[Lorien]

166. Now there's a radical idea!

Equality...what an odd concept in a "democracy".

I'm not a historian so I don't know why the system is set up the way that it is, but I'm tired of never having any say at all in the process.

[calteacherguy]

8. K&R. nt

[gmudem]

9. A rotating primary would be the best idea.

The good thing about Iowa and New Hampshire is that they are able to vet the candidate and get to have very long and personal looks at them. However there is no reason they should be the only states that have the privilege, especially considering the obvious lack of diversity in each state.

[krabigirl]

54. I agree

[Mz Pip]

10. I agree

but I also think people in other states need to start paying attention before IA and NH and not just follow along like sheep with what those states do.

A lazy electorate can be deadly.

Californians can have a say. THere is nothing keeping them from voting for someone other than the winner of IA or NH.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Le Taz Hot]

117. THIS year we have a say.

In 2004, our primary was in March and Kerry had been chosen for us two months prior. We MAY actually get to choose this time. The problem, as always, will be the MSM who will be pushing whoever wins Iowa as the "inevitable" winner.

[pingzing58]

11. I don't f*ing care about anyone from f*ing Iowa or NH. My vote in TX hasn't counted for years and

I'm fed up with our system. There has to be a better way!!!

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Diane R]

13. Kicked. Recommended. And heartily agree. I'm thoroughly disgusted Iowa & NH have a monopoly.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbackjon]

66. fuck iowa and new hampshire.

[taylor egv420106]

68. Well gee with a witty rejoinder like that

THE SAME TO YOU

[Le Taz Hot]

118. You mean like this?

And I quote: "Put up or shut up." (Post #30) :eyes:

[leftcoastie]

16. How about we

divide the nation roughly in fours and have a primary (all parties) every other week. In two months it would be done and we could get on to the general. Let's say the process should begin 6 months before the general election. Oh, and throw in instant runoff voting for fun.

[Myrina]

18. Good, now maybe there'll be a groundswell for a National Primary Day ..

... or not, knowing how long the sheeple actually pay attention to little things like choosing the country's leadership.

The majority of them are probably mostly pissed because it's taking airtime away from the "To Catch A Predator" reruns. :eyes:

[Radio_Lady]

35. See my response upthread. I've been talking about NPD since the early 1970s.

It's about time right now.

Sincerely,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[Skittles]

20. it absolutely disgusts me

last time, Kerry was a done deal before voting got anyhwere NEAR me - this shit has got to STOP

[taylor egv420106]

38. Do you actually think

that there wouldn't be a likely nominee before the end of the primary process regardless of who goes first?

[Skittles]

41. that's not the point

the point is it is unfair TO NOT BE A PART OF IT - and it is INDEED quite possible we would have more WINNERS if the system TRULY represented ALL OF US DEMS.

[taylor egv420106]

46. If its not the point

Then why did you complain about a nominee being mostly choosen before you voted. And the fact of the matter is no matter WHO the nominee is there is always going to be a part of the party complaining that they were left out, that their values were ignored. The idea that we could have a potential nominee that everyone finds acceptable is a fantasy. Let alone the idea of a likely nominee who stands a shot in hell in a general election.

[Skittles]

49. you don't get it, do you?

OUR VOTES DO NOT COUNT!!!!!!!!

[taylor egv420106]

57. I get it just fine

You are simply resorting to plaintive wailing because you aren't liking what you hear.

[Skittles]

74. you don't get it

and dealing with trolls gets tiresome quickly so - goodbye

[taylor egv420106]

105. Well dealing with mewling children like you

Is SOOOO much fun.

[iamjoy]

154. I'm With You, Texas!

Taylor seems to want to say we are whining or sniveling for protesting an injustice in the electoral system.

It reminds me of the Republicans with their "Sore/Loserman" signs after the 2000 debacle. You know, the ones who said (and some media joined in on this) that even a child could figure out a butterfly ballot - so its the fault of the stupid voters. Or maybe all those elderly Jewish people in Palm Beach County really meant to vote for Buchanan and not Gore/Lieberman. Oh, and as for the voters incorrectly purged - I imagine some said it was the voters own fault for not checking their status in advance.

In some ways, ya'll (Texas voters) have it worse, we Floridians at least see the candidates in the general election 'cos we're a swing state. On the other hand, we've been collectively screwed this primary season. It's pointless to debate whether it's the DNC, the FDP or our legislature, but blaming the situation on the voters of Florida seems callous and dare I say - kind of Republican.

[harmonicon]

21. "frustrated" is putting it mildly

It blows my mind that the state and national parties can't fucking get there shit together enough to come up with a decent, simple and fair system for primary elections. Numerous systems have been suggested that would be better than what we have now.

And, I would like to take this space to point something out: the argument that the Iowa caucuses are better than normal secret ballot elections because people talk about the candidates' pros and cons is ridiculous. There's already a place to have these discussions - a real community. If people haven't already discussed these things with other voters before going to their polling place, they've already made the choice to be uninformed.

[99th_Monkey]

23. Is it time for ONE uniform National Primary date yet? .. YES IMHO n/t

[postulater]

25. It's only because elections are winner take all that

the two party system is so entrenched.

If all elections were instant runoff, there would be no need for local primaries, they could be nationwide with the top three or four candidates vying for the top spot in the fall.

This would probably also get rid of political parties and then the elections could be federally funded.

Just a dream of course.

But in reality, every state has its chance to set their primary where they want (within some guidelines, Im sure). If the conventions were run the way they used to be run, then each state would have a say. But nowdays the conventions are controlled by the corporations anyway so why bother.

[humbled_opinion]

33. Why do they get to have all the fun...

:silly:

[jimlup]

39. I for one am pissed

I live in Michigan and we're getting screwed. The party won't recognize our delegates and all but Clinton have pulled out of our primary. I agreed with Michigan's stance that NH and Iowa don't have a special right to an early primary. This primary formula was developed back in the horse and carriage days.

It is time to update both the primary system and the electoral college. What a joke of a system.

[L0oniX]

42. The sticks = Iowa n/t

[taylor egv420106]

48. Where are you from tough guy?

You sure love taking shots at Iowa.

[Dr_Orpheus]

43. As much as I desire...

...that I have a fair chance at selecting a nominee as Iowa and NH do at the present, there are most certainly consequences to any changes in the current system. As others have mentioned, we're looking past the positive aspects that Iowa brings as the first state in the nation to choose a nominee:

1) Cheap media markets - I reiterate what previous posters have said about money being central to elections, both in the nomination and GE process. Iowa levels the playing field between the initially well-funded and others who lack wealthy and familiar donors.
2) Small geographic area coverage - Something I think we're missing in this discussion. Retail politics in the sense of the door-to-door and small gathering events provides citizens a much closer look for them to properly judge candidates rather than relying on an already heavily consolidated media to provide them with mere 2-5 second sound bites. This is a damn big country, and I'd like for something resembling local campaigning to remain as an essential/core part of elections.

Rotating regional caucuses, in addition to implementing an instant-run-off format, public financing, and a level media market availability to candidates all provide something close to the ideal. There are way too many issues to be addressed as a whole in approaching this issue rather than state or City/Rural rivalry.

[Maryland Liberal]

45. My plan 4 Primaries

Have 3 states Every week, - One small - one medium -one large. The order would be chosen on how close those states were to duplicating the previous presidential election results.

[taylor egv420106]

50. Then you have

Every hardcore Dem state complaining that they are being ignored.

[Sentath]

58. AND every hardcore republican state

Sounds good to me.

Spread it out to 3 a month rather than 3 a week and you have my vote.

[taylor egv420106]

63. My point is simple

No matter how you do it, no matter what process you use, SOMEONE will be complaining they are being ignored. SOMEONE will be crying that the party has deserted them.

People complaining about the system right now are simply people upset with rules they agreed to being followed.

[Sentath]

69. Yes, and I think the opposing point

Is simple too. In the name of fairness I would like to spread the misery around a little instead of leaving it all where it will once again come to rest.

[nachoproblem]

88. Your point isn't true

if they all go at the same time, now is it?

And most of us don't even get the first opportunity to agree with these rules that "everyone" agreed to until they come up for another referendum.

Eh, it's all been said. You think you're better than everybody else because you like the way it is. Fine. I'm done caring.

[taylor egv420106]

106. Except they will NEVER all go at the same time

Due to timezones and different polling times from state to state there will ALWAYS be someone going first. Every election republicans cry and snivel that they are looking at the early returns from part of Florida when the other part is still voting. Someone will ALWAYS go first. Someone will ALWAYS finish first.

[nachoproblem]

129. Except that I've never heard anybody bitch about general election that way.

And it never occurred to me to bitch about that either. Maybe some of them are even bigger crybabies than me? Go figure.

[iamjoy]

52. Your Idea Has Merit

and is not unlike one of my ideas where I suggested ordered phased primaries based not on how close they were to calling winners, but how many of their eligible voters actually showed up to vote.

In any case, an early spot in the primary should be a reward for participation, not arbitrary as it is now.

I have suggested that we should line up by size, but I actually kind of like your idea of mixed size states. After all, to win the general election, the candidates are going to have to win some of these big states and should be vetted in part on their ability to campaign there. And it should encompass different regions, too because again, to win a national election, a candidate must have broad appeal.

[krabigirl]

55. It is very frustrating. Why do they get to decide for us??

[taylor egv420106]

59. OK lets hear your idea

Lets hear your great plan for a perfect nominating process that handles every state equally, doesn't exponentially increase the amount of money and therefore special interests in the process and allows every single Democratic group, organization, candidate and voter 100% equal say at the precisely the same moment.

[Blue Gardener]

96. We only decide for Iowa

We don't decide for the whole country.

[Tarc]

60. how did this bitchfest get recommended so high?

As others have pointed out, the idea of smaller states first is to give lesser-known candidates a chance. Less money is needed for advertising, smaller physical size means less travel time, etc...

Stick California, New York, or Texas up front and you'll never see the Kuciniches, Bidens, etc...even jump in in the first place.

[taylor egv420106]

64. Unfortunately I think thats the point

I think a great deal of the complainers would prefer they not have to look at a large variety of candidates, that way less thought is required.

[dropkickpa]

167. You are 100% wrong

The main problem most of the "complainers" have is that they DON'T get more than one or two candidates to choose from. You are deliberately missing the point of every non-IA/NHer in this thread. We don't get a choice, because most candidates drop out before they get to us because of poor showings in IA and NH.

[nachoproblem]

89. You know?

I think you made that point well. You put forward a good explanation, with good support, and without false dilemmas, begging obvious questions, or poisoning the well. It was constructive. I may or may not ultimately agree (haven't quite decided yet), but well done nevertheless. Thank you.

Edit: Oh, except maybe the title. Come now, it's always a bitchfest. We're here to get it out.

[Tarc]

120. thanks

Certainly I am a bit biased by being from NH and all, but it works this way better than any other practical solution. I like seeing the candidates come speak in small 50-100 person gatherings. In late 2003 I was sitting in a coffee shop in Plymouth, NH and John Kerry's brother Cameron dropped in, stopped to talk to everyone for a good 5-10 minutes each. The likelihood of that happening in a larger state is vanishingly minute.

[McCamy Taylor]

62. Shouldn't this read "Mainstream media frustrated by influence of Iowa and NH"?

The only reason a poll like this gets done and then a story like this gets written and reported is because some corporate CEO somewhere is hopping mad that anticorporate Republican Huckabee has a shot in Iowa with Mormon Romney the alternative. Neither man stands a snow ball's chance in hell of beating any of the potential Democratic nominees in the fall. McCain and Guiliani, the two potential GOP winners might win the GOP nomination if the Republicans could get some of the less god fearing big states that require big money (and that have the potential for big GOP election fraud) up first.

Plus, this election cycle, the RNC has been working hard to hijack the Democratic primary. In particular, they have tried to shut out Edwards. However, Edwards is doing surprising well in Iowa for a candidate who has been blacklisted by the press for almost a year. This is really pissing off the mainstream media big time. Their Two Man Race strategy would be much more effective if they could have persuaded the Dems to lead off with a big state like Florida with corrupt voting officials like LaPore who can be counted upon to cook the votes in Democratic precincts the way that the Republicans want them.

[SlowDownFast]

67. Well at least most of you get a choice.

Here in Michigan, it's between Hillary and Hillary and Not Committed.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

99. Yep, and I'll be there bright and early

to vote for "not committed". Just in case the gatekeepers at the convention let the MI delegates in.

Back on topic: I like the setup as it is (or as it was in 2004, before the states started their primary shuffle).

We get a chance to look at some less-well-funded candidates, hear some ideas, before the big states decide the outcome. If we put the big states up front, we'd get a choice between one or two big-early-money connected candidates, and never hear from the rest.

[DemKR]

71. national primary day is waht we need n/t

[syberlion]

75. no one's talking about the dead rotting body in the room...

Yes, I will talk about it because it needs to be talked about. The reason NH and IA go first is because the general make up of those two states is white. Yep, I said it now... Consider, where does the majority of wealth lie? What's been happening over these last eight years? Who's benefited and who is suffering?

Let's think about this for a moment. What is the best way to get a large herd of sheeple going in one direction? First, you need a bell and then you need to ring it to get every sheep's attention. Once you've done that, it's fairly easy to guide them in the direction you've got them looking. The power base is largely white and fearful of the changes coming so in order to maintain their vision of this country, they've made it imperative that a largely white populated state rings the first bell.

If the first state, for example, is a largely hispanic state say somewhere in the Southwest, there's a good chance that a hispanic would fair well. Pick any region, there are some candidates that would do better than others. That is the nature of national politics. Society likes a winner, so whomever is winning in the beginning has a head start. True, not always accurate as pointed out before, some early winners faded and were history. What is happening is with the current level of discontent with the whole process, each state is feeling left out, pushed around and generally un-empowered.

When state parties adopted a "winner-take-all" system, that's when things began to change. Party conventions became coronations and not the most basic of political processes, debate and compromise. The political platforms still get hammered out, only by those already with the lion's share of delegates, because the views of the minority part of the party is effectively squashed. This disenfranchises more and more each election cycle until you have a large section of people no longer voting and a small fanatical base showing up and voting in their candidates.

Once the handwriting was on the wall, to maintain their power base, those in power began the laborious program of stealing the elections, by any means possible. With each passing election it got harder and harder to pass of the rigged elections as real. So, why not maintain the need for a white leader by starting the process in a largely white area of the country?

National primaries would work if no outside money was used and if a candidate did, that would disqualify them instantly. Debates with no rules negotiated or otherwise. surveys and polls would only be released after the fact, better yet let's outlaw polls and surveys. All it's done is give this country a bunch of followers in positions of leadership.

Now, back to reality. What difference does it make what state goes first when all the pieces are already scripted? What difference does it make when all the deals are already brokered and we the people weren't even consulted. We are just asked to trot out and follow the MSM declaratives, pull the right lever or push the right buttons which aren't attached to anything anyway, just a way to keep the masses thinking their opinion means anything.

Harsh? yes it is. These are harsh times, when death and destruction are accepted as part of doing business. These are harsh times when crimes occur in broad daylight and those sworn to protect and defend the Constitution fiddle while the whole place is going up in flames. These are harsh times, when we the people vote in droves for the next American Idol and yet give no thought who's running the whole country. These are harsh times, when the real stories are being suppressed and we are left with fake, vapid, empty, useless media.

As far as NH being the first, because of history, well ok. Then let's bring it all back then, when NH was the first, we had slavery, we had no women voting for anything, child labor laws did not exist, and I could go on of course. The point is, we left tradition when we the people created these United States. Even George Washington understood and did not want a "Title." He just wanted to be the presiding officer, or President. He broke with tradition because it was the beginning of a new time and a new era.

This system is at a dangerous cross-road. One we've seen throughout history. Most have chosen the path to despotism and eventual destruction. Let's break with tradition and not follow what historically has happened. Let us re-empower ourselves and shrug off this useless weight of oppression. The issue is education. Educate anyone and everyone about what they can do, what can be done. That's where we are today, we've allowed the message to carry us, WE have to carry the message to them.

[Le Taz Hot]

119. You lost me at:

"Who's benefitting and who's suffering." People of ALL races are suffering, dear.

[syberlion]

132. it was late and I didn't specify

Everyone's being harmed, except the extremely wealthy. Although, the extremely wealthy are being inconvenienced though, by the rumblings and discomfort of the rest of us.

[Chovexani]

146. Preach.

This needs to be its own thread.

[Thothmes]

76. The Games have to start somewhere

Iowa & New Hampshire are just as good as California or New York. The only show that counts is the Convention.

[Retrograde]

131. If the only thing that counts is the convention

why bother with the primaries? If the primaries decide the candidates, why spend all the resources to have conventions? Seems like a lot of taxpayer money is getting spend to get the parties in the limelight.

[4dsc]

77. I'm going fucking nuts in Iowa

Listen all you fucking crybabies out there that are picking on Iowa and NH.. I cannot speak for NH but the sooner they get this caucus OVER the better it will be for everyone.. But my main complaint is all the political advertisements that have taken over my TV set.. If you want to complain about Iowa how about you volunteer to listen to a few thousand advertisements that have run for the past 3-4 months.. And with the caucus only days away, it seems the only thing being advertised are campaign ad's!! I can only hope they are coming to a state where you live and they run them all fucking day and night..

rant off..

[Diane R]

81. One the other hand, your state is the recipient of millions of dollars in ad and tourism dollars.

[nachoproblem]

90. I agree with the crybabies,

but it's not about Iowa and NH. It's about us as a national party not coming up with a better system. We ought to. And I'm sorry about the campaign barrage. That's as good a reason as any.

[taylor egv420106]

107. Again thats another no win situation

You would not believe how DESPITE all those ads I guarantee you on Friday there will be people asking 'How come I never knew the caucus was happening' swearing they were NEVER contacted and never heard from even a single campaign.

[Blue Gardener]

97. And the phone never stops ringing

Enough already!

[4dsc]

123. Go wireless!!

I haven't received one campaign call on my cell phone, yet I have heard that people with land lines are getting nailed..

[nachoproblem]

134. I've had campaign calls on my cell.

Mostly from local elections, not so many national. Though I did get the ol' Martin Sheen at least once, and maybe a Danny Glover. I don't even answer my land line, so it must have been on my cell.

But in general, you're probably right. And in a big primary/caucus state, which is something I've never experienced.

[Bettie]

121. Not to mention

The thirty to forty robo-calls, then there are the polls (we get at least two or three of those a day each for my DH and I).

I started tracking last week.....the Clinton campaign alone calls me about 8 times a day and my husband at least that many!

Now, the system may not be fair, but as my old granny used to say, Life isn't fair.

A national primary would be lovely, but until it happens, this is the system that we have.

Of course, if there were a national primary, we in Iowa, NH, and other small states would never see a candidate except on the news.

[pipoman]

158. Yea, like here in Kansas

"Of course, if there were a national primary, we in Iowa, NH, and other small states would never see a candidate except on the news."

We haven't seen a candidate for years..

[brentspeak]

152. The thing is, you wouldn't have to worry about all the phone calls and ads

if the state primaries and caucuses were all held on the same day. There wouldn't be armies of out-of-staters marching into Iowa, competing for your attention and your support.

[IndianaGreen]

78. Iowa is always picking LOSERs

The Iowa caucus is a con job designed to bilk the candidates and the media, of all the money they have to spend in that shitty little state.

[Connonym]

93. Seriously? you're from Indiana and slamming on Iowa

:rofl:

[taylor egv420106]

108. Oh please someone from INDIANA talking smack?

This from a state where Bobby Knight was the biggest thing since wagon trains?

[4dsc]

114. You sound like rightie

with your immature name calling.. I'm wondering what GOP candidate you're working for because you cannot constrain yourself..

[lovuian]

79. I agree this is part of the Democracy sham

its not reflective of the real America

[McCamy Taylor]

82. Those who don't like it can go back to what we had before, when the Party picked the nominee.

Or we could have a one day primary in which the corporations would pick the candidate by bankrolling their favorite and instructing their media whores to give free positive publicity to the anointed one in each party. The candidate with the biggest war chest and the most mainstream media backing would win the one day winner take all primary, since there would be no chance for town halls and one on one campaigning.

Which of these two alternatives sounds more Democratic than what we have now? Come on, all you people who are complaining. You tell us what you want instead.

The fair way is to have a single state have a primary each day for 50 days in a row, with a rotation that changes each presidential election year. That way there is no super anything day, and no one state is always given the privilege of going first or stuck going last.

[Lasher]

87. I would rather have all primaries on the same day like the general election

I object to the way you characterize such an arrangement, however.

Second choice would be to rotate.

My third choice would be to have the party pick the nominee.

Last choice is status quo.

[taylor egv420106]

110. Except then

you would have people crying about how they picked who went first instead of crying about who went first.

[Hardrada]

84. O boo fucking hoo

says this Iowan. We hear this every election cycle but none of you other people ever get organized enough to do more than piss and moan every four years. Get organized and maybe we'll take you more seriously.

[and-justice-for-all]

94. I never gave this thought until now...

Yeah, undemocratic to not cycle the states.

[sasquatch]

98. If the Iowans send us another surrender in advance, pink tutu dem like Kerry

I say we should cut all ag subsidies and tornado relief for a decade to teach them a lesson.

[mwb970]

100. It bothers me that Iowa and NH are such atypical states.

Neither captures anything like a cross-section of America as a whole. If we were to consciously pick the two states that most closely match America's overall demographic and have them vote first, they would at least have a case. But the case for these two states seems to be "we've always done it this way."

[taylor egv420106]

109. Put up or shut up

Name even a single state where there are no potential complaints about that state going first.

[mwb970]

113. Well, you're right.

Somebody has to go first, unless they all go at once. I do think that another pair of states would at least be less susceptible to the "unrepresentative" charge. But as you point out, there would likely be some other objection to those states. It's a trade-off.

[taylor egv420106]

138. Despite the protestations

I think most of these "Democrats" would only be happy with their state getting the attention. Its simply jealousy. Another kid got a shinier new toy at Christmas.

[pipoman]

161. You should really go back and read

all of your insolent, disrespectful, name calling, all caps, responses to other people's concerns.

If you want to really talk childish listen to your defense of an obviously flawed primary system. It is indefensible to allow the same voters to choose the nominees every election cycle. The only defenders of such a system would be those who are doing the picking as is evident in this thread. Your lame, repeated response that "these are the rules, live with it crybaby" are in themselves childish and simplistic. You certainly have a right to your opinion but why must you be rude, and call names to others who disagree with you? It is so apparent that you are only arguing your position because you live in Iowa, if these primaries began in Kansas and Iowa didn't get a vote until the candidate was already picked you would be bitching too...why not at least acknowledge that fact?

[bean fidhleir]

126. That's the understatement of the year!

They're both conservative, whitebread states with populations smaller than many metro areas.

[Highway61]

111. It is blatantly apparent

That a few folks here got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
whew..... :sarcasm:

OK all...take a deep breath, unload the anger and let's eliminate a troll or two.

[fmlymninral]

112. it should be a national primary day

Preferably in June and the should be a 24hr voting period that is the same across the country. This would keep any results from being known so that everybody could vote without worrying about what happened in another state. Would also make the candidates run in all states and not pander to one or two states then change their tune later for a another state.

[AngryOldDem]

122. I'd make the elections a weekend event...

...as well as cut the whole process down to about six weeks or so and make everyone substantively discuss the issues from the get-go.

At the very least, it's becoming clear that the nominating conventions are a redundancy. Keep them, if only to solidify a platform, but drop the sham of anointing a candidate.

This will never happen, of course, but this discussion only underscores the need for election reform on many levels.

[CANDO]

142. I'm frustrated as hell being from Pennsylvania.

We vote in April. However, I remember the nomination process as far back as the 1976 election cycle(I was 12) was contested all the way into May and June. The various states had their say and the campaigns of the various candidates had their ups and downs. Carter and Mondale and Ted Kennedy took the nominating fight to each other and the later voting states didn't necessarily fall into line behind the so-called front runner. Watch NH this year. I bet you they don't go with the winner of Iowa in either party. Then it's up to SC and beyond. If you don't like the front runner after IA and NH, fire off a check to the candidate you like that didn't win and vote for him/her when you get the chance. I voted for Bradley long after Gore had the nomination wrapped up in 2000.

[AngryAmish]

147. I think it is absurd Florida has any voice in choosing a president

[Tarc]

160. Florida's OK now, after their latest ballot box upgrade

[susanna]

155. Michigan tried to move their place up...

...and the Democratic candidates told them to go pound sand. Whatever.

I think Iowa and New Hampshire are beautiful states; I've been to both extensively. But yeah, having them have so much power in the process irks me no end. Goodness knows the answer.

[dropkickpa]

163. Here in PA we don't really get a choice

There's usually one or two people left on the ticket by the time we get to vote. Bunch of bullshit, and it's part of the reason why there's such a shitty primary turnout here.

[boricua79]

165. why not have a National Primary day

that way the candidates have to compete for caucus delegates from all the country, and therefore, no one state, its population, and its pet interests gets attention. It would reflect candidates truly speaking for the entire nation and its needs.

Why "take turns"...or go regional. Just go national. Are we a nation, or a region? We have a national election day...have a freaking National Primary day and be done with it. If we give Columbus a freaking holiday, give us a national primary and national election day holidays!

PROBLEM SOLVED!

[Tarc]

168. Not really, no

The candidates will just spend the great majority of time campaigning in the states with the largest delegates. They would rarely, if ever, step outside the likes of California, New York, Texas, or Ohio.

The only thing I'd really like to see change is with this dumb caucus stuff. Requiring people to stand around for hours yapping about the candidates, building little mini-coalitions and such to weed out the non-viables, etc...is a archaic system that only attracts the most diehard political wanks. Either Iowa goes for a traditional primary, of the 1st-in-the-nation should go to another small-ish state.

[demo dutch]

173. The American system is the most absurd sysem I've ever seen!

[qwlauren35]

177. I've never understood...

why primaries aren't all held on the same day from state to state.

The other option would be 8 primary dates, each with 8-9 states on the same day.

But I know the candidates would hate having to choose where to go.

The thing is, if a state has always had the same primary date for umpteen years, changing it would confuse voters, and lead to lower turn-outs.

So, in principle, I agree that all primary dates before Super Tuesday should be rotated, but logistically, I think that changing the date of a state's primary will cause problems. And rotating it from year to year would cause even more.

[marlakay]

178. I agree with NPD

have said so for years. Its very unfair to us out west I am in Washington and used to live in CA and we are always last after a lot of good people have dropped out or you feel pressured by other primaries to vote a certain way. Thats what happened last time with kerry. I wanted to vote for Dean but by the time we voted he was pretty much done.

Changing it is ridiculous since you have to wait 4 yrs...in our lifetimes we would never see much difference. It should be all at once...they only do it for the candidates so they can travel from state to state, don't care about us voting people at all.

All we are is people to manipulate, bribe, try to make us have hope, fear, etc...anything to get a vote.

I am starting to get sick of the whole process and see why most of America just watches dumb shit tv and doesn't get into it at all.