Is this truly democratic?

[jansu]

I think it is time that we decide who is going to be our Presidential nominee on one day, say the first Tuesday in March, across the nation. Now, few states get to decide who wins, not all Democrats! This does not seem truly democratic.

Start the process in the fall, with debates and holding meetings in each state. Then a one day vote on whom the majority of Democrats want! You would still get your % for the delegates so that you would have some control over the platform. Would this take some of the money and the power of the press out of it?

Or am I missing something? And too hopeful, that there is a way to change this process from what it is!

[BruinAlum]

1. It would be impossible for candidates to campaign in all states

for primaries on the same day. And I disagree that a few states are deciding who wins. There have only been 2 primaries and it's far from over. I don't think we are going to get a true picture of delegate support until Super Tuesday, March 2. A LOT can happen between now and then.

[corporatewhore]

2. Electoral/party politics in general are very undemocratic

[texasmom]

3. This is the first time

in my 41 years that I've gotten involved at the primary stage. I do not think the present system is going to help us choose a strong candidate, and I hope they revamp.

I've also been rethinking how I feel about open primaries, too. I've voted in the Republican primary a couple of times--once for McCain, because I wanted to register opposition to Bush in his home state in 2000. I also voted for a state senator over a radical rightwinger. The radical would have won if others hadn't crossed over.
However, in a situation like we have this year, Republicans can, indeed, cause mischief in places like South Carolina and New Hampshire. Democrats should choose the Dem nominee.

The one day vote idea would probably elect whomever is polling ahead on that day. I'd probably be more in favor of regional primaries set several weeks apart.

[DjTj]

4. A Nationwide primary would give more power to money and media...

...It would be impossible for so many voters to get to see the candidates face-to-face like they did in New Hampshire and Iowa.

The candidate who can afford the most commercials would have a huge advantage.

The truth is candidates can never raise enough money to hold the number of meetings in every state that they did in New Hampshire in Iowa.

It just isn't possible for everyone in the country to get to know the candidates up close, and the larger the contest, the more power the media will have.

Personally, I like the fact that a few people who got to know our candidates well got to make the decisions. It's better than having people who get all their information from the mainstream media.

[MAlibdem]

5. That's why

I think five states a week would be a good deal over 10 weeks.

Separate the country into 5 regions, 1 state per region per week. Makes things more interesting, tho perhaps polarizing regionally.