Changing the Democratic Primary season.

[Ravy]

Guess what. It has been changed. You did it. The 'net did it.

The first-in-the-nation states lost a lot of power this year. Not just on the Democratic side, either.

It used to be, you win Iowa or New Hampshire and money pours in. I imagine it *still* does from the traditional sources of money, the big donors... but their money is now dwarfed by money that is generated by the Internet. And, Internet supporters are not as fickle as the big-money donors because they don't expect any special favors for their 50 dollar donations... tens and hundreds of thousands of them.

If the republicans had had Romney OR Huckabee, instead of Romney AND Huckabee splitting the religious/conservative vote early, they would probably still have a race on that side, too.

The big joke is on Florida (again!) and Michigan, who if they were to be holding their primaries, say, next Tuesday or the week after would be some of the hardest fought primaries of the season. Their move to the front pretty much made them irrelevant, although that may change, I suppose.

The 'net support leads to more grassroots efforts. Ron Paul is getting as much support as he ever did, and can keep his candidacy going with Internet support and still put up the same numbers he held earlier.

I live in Florida, and voted for Edwards. My vote didn't count, it won't make any difference if it does.

My point is that the early states, while it is cool to meet the candidates up close, have lost a lot of power in determining the nominee. There is now some advantage to voting late where your (collectively) votes among the narrowed field may actually be key in determining the eventual nominee. Texas, PA, Ohio are tremendously important now. All of the rest of the states are, because the grassroots power of the Internet allow candidates to go on. Hillary might have been out of this thing had the Internet never existed, as big donors tapped out early. (Thanks, and a shout-out to Al Gore). Obama may never have been really in it.

Good job, 'net junkies! The people now speak more loudly, while the big money donors can pound sand.

[Debi]

1. Tell that to anyone who lives in a state after Iowa

that wanted to vote for Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Or lives in a state after New Hampshire that wanted to vote for Bill Richardson. Or lives in a state after Nevada that wanted to vote for John Edwards.

[Ravy]

2. They can still vote for them, but honestly, they never polled that

well nationally. Those people in Iowa who voted for Chris Dodd would maybe like to trade their vote now for one that could really make a difference deciding the nominee.

Moving some other state to the front of the line would not have changed that.

[cyclezealot]

5. Exactly. You are so right.

the reason we need a national primary and demand networks give all certified candidates free air time. No one should have the right to eliminate the candidate I choose before we get a chance to vote.

[cyclezealot]

3. Maybe some of us don't give a dam about being decisive

but getting elected those who we wish to represent our views. Now, as a Native born Michigan ian, i could give a dam how important our votes would be. Because , they are not my chosen candidates. Some get easily impressed by the horse race. No thanks. We want our elections to give all voices a chance to be heard and all votes equal. I could care less about voting for some other states left overs. As Michiganians, we applaud what Michigan did. Even then we were left with the left overs of four other states and those we wanted were eliminated for us. No thanks.

[Ravy]

7. Well, the truth of the matter is that your candidate can either make

it or not.

People have this idea that, "Oh! If our state had voted first and given Biden 7% of the vote, he would be the nominee today!"

People today can still vote for Biden (or Richardson, Dodd, Kuch, Gore, even) and they can vote for them in November. The idea that they were winnowed out by Iowa or New Hampshire instead of California, Georgia, or New York is of very little consolation.

The point is that early states are losing their clout due to technology, particularly the Internet, and that is a good thing. The very fact that you can still express your view and hundreds of people will see it/read it shows the difference between now and a couple of decades ago. And the trend is moving in our favor.

[cyclezealot]

9. Not from what I experienced.

By the time they got to my state Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, Dodd and for all practical purposes Edwards. I had no incentive to really vote. Because I feel luke warm about Obama or Clinton. So, in spite of all; since my candidates name was on the ballot but not running. I voted for the person anyway. Feel much better than voting for those I feel luke warm about. We need a National primary. Make all votes equal in value.

[Ravy]

11. A national primary would go further to ensure that

a candidate that doesn't have a lot of money/support on a given day will never have a chance to recover from that.

It didn't happen on the Democratic side, but on the republican side Huckabee pretty much came from way down in national polls into "somewhat" of a contender.

[cyclezealot]

12. pass a law, networks are required to give free air time

as they should. And all have an equal chance. Networks rent the airwaves from us. It's as it should be. With such a system, maybe Edwards would have survived. Its how most nations work their democracy.

[Ravy]

13. The problem with free air time is that there are dozens of

people running for the office of president. If you give equal free air time for all, then really none of them get a message out.

Before the primaries, the 8 major candidates got a lot of debate time. I know it was unequal, but it was probably proportional to their support.

Where do you draw the line?

[cyclezealot]

14. Congress makes a law to determine who gets air time.

The FEC sets standards to determine who is a qualified candidate based on say, ability to raise cash. It could be through a petition drive. Maine and Arizona already have some public funding for legislative races. Its not really a problem. Already the FEC sets standards as to who qualifies for federal matching funds in presidential races. Look abroad. Most western democracies have accomplished such. The hurdle should be reasonable but not impossible. Proably the standards already in order to determines who gets federal matching funds is a good place to start. I know , this is dreaming. Corporations are more than happy to give one billion dollars in order to elect our president and Congress.

[Kashka-Kat]

4. Why can't we have them all on the same day?

Been wondering that for some time.

Could even do it as instant run off voting, giving your first and 2nd choice. That would solve the problem of there possibly being no clear winner.

Or have the delegates negotiate and work out concessions to arrive at a nominee.

I'd rather vote for John Edwards or Kucinich say and know that his delegates would have some authority to wheel and deal at the convention.

The way it is now- I can still vote for Edwards but its just p***ing in the wind.

[Ravy]

6. Well, there are a number of reasons...

First, it doesn't let anyone emerge who might not otherwise. Whoever had the clout (money, name recognition) at the day of the contest would probably get the most votes.

Secondly, if there were a large number of candidates, the chances of anyone getting a majority instead of a plurality would be slim. No one on either side would have gotten a majority on the first day of voting if the national polls were to be believed.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Third, money.

Free the airwaves!

[cyclezealot]

10. Free the Airwaves to adhere to the orignial FCC moto.

The licensees are to work in the public interest. Do like most democracies do. Have a national primary. Candidates be given free air time. Have a run off between the two finalists. That is democracy. Make the airwaves work for the public interest and wa la, the campaign cash from the special interests have suddently been made far less significant.