Lets change the Primary and make all the states vote at one time.

[Quixote1818]

A friend sent this to me and thought I would share the idea. What do you all think?


This was in the paper this morning and sounds pretty good.
The primary season should start in Jan. And the elections..............all of them should be held in June for the Dem nominee.
That would give the candidates 6 months to run all over the country campaigning.
I think its a good idea.
We should all vote at once. Then everyone will have to research their candidates and make up their own minds instead of letting the media choose for them. WHat do you all think? Something has to change.

If you like this idea please write the DNC and your local paper.

[Dookus]

1. nah...

that'll stop 'em from running doing any local campaigning. I like that they get out and meet the voters.

[Quixote1818]

4. How would it stop them from local campaigning? They would

have six months to hit hundreds of towns through out the country and not just the little towns in NH and Iowa.

[Edwards4President]

9. But they wouldn't

They would focus instead on the larger states - California, NY, Texas, etc. - since they could sew up the nomination by winning a few select states with large delegate slates.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. That would give a TRULY unfair advantage to the wealthiest candidates

[DjTj]

3. Yeah, it would be impossible for any outsider...

...to have a shot at all. It would require $100 million do run an effective campaign.

[Quixote1818]

6. The ability to raise money comes from grass roots support. I don't

understand the arguement. I think this would make the candidates have to spend more time meeting people rather than depending on Ad's. They would get most of there publicity form local news.

[DjTj]

16. How much time are you going to give the candidates?

It took at least a month to meet all the voters in Iowa, and that is not a very populous state.

You would have a very hard time getting people to meet the candidates several months before they vote, and that would be necessary if they were expected to go to all 50 states.

They would have to be reminded in the days leading up to the election, and that would be all about TV ads.

Howard Dean is the only candidate to have ever raised money of that magnitude through grass-roots support. Clark tried it but he clearly could not do it on the level that Dean pulled it off. I don't think it can be done by more than one candidate at a time and it will never reach the magnitude of Dean's funding without a unifying issue like the war.

Actually, thinking about what happenned this time, I think what would happen is that candidates would each camp out in their own sections of the country, and we would probably have serious regional divisions. I think that's more or less how politics was in the 1800's.

[zoeyfong]

21. How so? besides, the wealthiest candiates already have an advantage.

[leyton]

5. We should instead rotate the states.

Running a national campaign is too difficult for all but the most well-funded candidates - guys with money like Dean and Kerry would flood the market and guys like Edwards and Kucinich would be at a heavy disadvantage.

Instead, the DNC should divide the country into four regions: the West coast, the Midwest, the Northeast, and the Southeast. Then every four years, a different state from each region gets the opportunity to be the first in that region (like Iowa, NH, and SC are now; you might pick Minnesota, Connecticut, and Georgia). What's more, which region goes first should also rotate, so in 2008, for example, the South would have first pick, and in 2012 the west coast might have first pick. An example, with four primaries spaced a week apart:

Year: State 1:       State 2:       State 3:       State 4:
2008: Georgia (S),   Conn. (N),     Arizona (W),   Minnesota (M)
2012: Wisconsin (M), Louisiana (S), Mass. (N),     New Mexico (W)
2016: Wash. (W),     Missouri (M),  Tennessee (S), New Jersey (N)

This would also eliminate the heavy influence on politicians from just Iowa and New Hampshire (where guys like Vilsack and Harkin and Shaheen and Clyburn can be kingmakers)

[Quixote1818]

7. How about doing Iowa, NH, AZ, and SC all on the same day?

That would be by far the most fair way as no region of the country could give any candidate a leg up on the rest.

[MAlibdem]

8. I agree

Fairest way, but I think the whole schedule should be rotating. And five regions would solve the "50/4 is a fraction" dilemma. So

Year 1:

Group One:
Texas
Washington
Maine
Michigan
North Carolina

Group Two:
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
Wisconsin
Georgia

Group Three:
Arizona
Idaho
Massachusetts
Illinios
Florida

Etc. Until all states are represented 10 weeks or 20 weeks depending how long between groups

Edit: Me language good

[Quixote1818]

13. Perfect! I see no flaws with this idea.

[leyton]

22. Ah, so five at a time?

Makes sense, then that one primary wouldn't be so devastating for guys like Gephardt.

[DebJ]

11. most of the costs are advertising. Get rid of advertising. see my post

beginning with 'amen'

[goodhue]

14. yes

This would be best option but there is no way currently front loaded states were ever go for it.

[texasmom]

18. I'm for several regional primaries

but I think they should be more than a week apart--at least two. I'd like to see the candidates campaign in all parts of the country, but actually have *time* to campaign--not just a quick week.

I love the idea of the rotations, too. I am sick and tired of never having a say about the nominee in Texas.

[DebJ]

10. Amen. I posted this several times but I'm not sure if I did so here. Also

1)Make political advertising illegal. Would anyone here ever admit to voting for a candidate based on a commercial? Oh my god.


2)'Our' airwaves need to give at least two nights a week, two hours a night, on 'non-cable' networks so almost everyone (Even Dean :)) has access, from January through May, for the candidates to

a)present themselves, speaking solo, just their own speeches

b) Q&A sessions where REAL people write the questions....and yes the media can ask maybe two questions of their own, as long as 'real' people approve of the questions first

c) REAL DEBATES. We haven't seen any debates at all. We've seen media slanted Q&A sessions.

[PragMantisT]

12. Sounds like a good idea

There's got to be a better way.

I will still vote for Clark in the Arkansas primary even though he won't be in it.

There are some good ideas in this thread.
What's the most workable?

[mmonk]

15. I was thinking the opposite at one time

Let the candidates campaign state to state for six months and have them all in the race until one big primary election. No voter gets left out.

[JasonBerry]

17. ONE BIG Media Campaign

As opposed to making them get out there and do what little retail-style campaigning there is left. I wouldn't like that at all.

[arewethereyet]

19. I think that would guarantee that the DNC's choice would win

there isn't enough money to go around so there is no incentive for anyone to try.

[zoeyfong]

20. I agree. There is way too much politicking as it is.