Do we need a new primary system?
By Guardian208
@Guardian208 (1095)
United States
March 31, 2008 11:41am CST
As we muddle through this presidential primary season, the blatant flaws in our system become glaringly obvious. It seems to me that we need a whole new system of choosing our party candidates.
We spend the good party of a year, millions and millions of dollars to whittle away the field of candidates to two. The candidates spend time and money tearing each other apart only to support them in the end once they win the candidacy. We have corruption of phony primary votes. We absorb time from the really important issues. And we tend to lose focus as we suffer from "primary burnout".
Here is what I propose:
One national primary. It is held on one day and includes both parties. Any registered voter can participate and vote for any candidate of either party. We eliminate the delegates and the super delegates and use the popular vote only. (We can set up something like the electoral college but that is a whole other conversation, lol.)
I think this would eliminate all the problems I mentioned above as well as give the candidates much more time to develop their platform, policies and to debate each other.
What do you think?
2 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
31 Mar 08
I agree we need to change but I would like to see a closed primary. People should have to register to vote in one party and it should be registered in the party before the day of the election. I would also like to see several "debates" where each party represented by a candidate, selects one person to ask questions of the other candidates. Each party would be allowed to set the number of delegates per state with none being a winner take all. For example a state would have 2 at large delegates and one delegate from each congressional district. In a state like New York or Massachusetts the candidates would have to visit all areas of the stae and not just one city.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
1 Apr 08
If you had the primary election on one day you would have several candidates running from each party. In a single day election no candidate would get a majority of the votes unless only two ran. You are then faced with how do you select the candidate? Do you take the one who got the most votes. For example who would be the nominee if the XYZ party had Mr Red, Mr Green, Mrs Pink, Ms. Blue, Mr Young, Ms Old, with the following votes:
Mr. Red 25%
Mr Green 23%
Mrs Pink 22%
Ms Blue 20%
Mr Young 6%
Ms Old 4%
The delegates would then get together and select the nomoniee. Delegates also establish the party platform or what the party stands for. This is the other important thing the delegates do at the convention.
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
31 Mar 08
Interesting bobmnu.
I can see the point of the closed elections. If they were open it would be more like the general election. But an open election would weaken the political parties as people cross party lines to support a candidate that better reflects their views, and I think that is a good thing. But I don't understand why you want to keep the delegates. Could you explain that?
@Fishmomma (11377)
• United States
31 Mar 08
I agree that the system we have now isn't working well. It would be good to reduce the length of time that people spend running for office, as the expense of running keeps many qualified people from seeking higher office.
I'm not happy knowing Super Delegates are more important than each of the votes on the Democratic Side, as all I read about and hear on the local news is the Super Delegates and many have been interviewed.
One area I disagree with you is the statement of both parties included, as there are more than 2 parties in this country. Everyone should have the right to vote and that includes all of the parties. I have voted Independent Party and the Green Party in past elections. Many of my friends don't vote for the two parties that everyone spends a lot of time discussing on this board.
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
31 Mar 08
Thanks for the post but I am not sure what you mean by including the other parties. I didn't think they held primaries. Do they?
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
2 Apr 08
If they do then their primaries are private. The government spends billions of dollars on primaries for only the two major parties. Despite the government funding the whole thing the Democrats can disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan and the US government won't say a word about it.
The other parties have been around a long time but without government support they'll never be able to command enough votes to win a presidential election.
