NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess I'm getting a little burned out and we still have 11 months to go before the election. Most of the candidates have been on the road for a year now. That's way to long for a political campaign.

I think we need two things; First is to limit the primary campaign season to six months. Secondly, have a national primary vote on the same day. That would eliminate crap like this (Democrats Strip Michigan of All Delegates for Scheduling Early Primary) and give us all some respite from two yearlong Presidential election campaigns.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314482,00.html

I guess I'm getting a little burned out and we still have 11 months to go before the election. Most of the candidates have been on the road for a year now. That's way to long for a political campaign.

I think we need two things; First is to limit the primary campaign season to six months. Secondly, have a national primary vote on the same day. That would eliminate crap like this and give us all some respite from two yearlong Presidential election campaigns.

how in the world would you limit the campaign season constitutionally?

id like a shorter primary season myself. mandate that all primaries must be held between....jan 15th and march 15th perhaps.

and no more caucuses allowed. all primaries.

I don't know about the campaign length, but with the chaos with all the states changing their primary dates to gain special attention from campaigning politicians I think it would be worthwhile having a limited number of fixed primary dates.

how in the world would you limit the campaign season constitutionally?

id like a shorter primary season myself. mandate that all primaries must be held between....jan 15th and march 15th perhaps.

and no more caucuses allowed. all primaries.

How about 1 primary date, that way no state gets special attention because of being the earliest.

How about 1 primary date, that way no state gets special attention because of being the earliest.

i kinda like the staggered system.

i like letting the citizens of iowa and new hampshire weed out the losers for me so that i can pick my favorite from the "likely to win" list.

let me give an example.

my top candidate is bill richardson. he seems to have no chance to win but you never know until someone votes.

my second choice is NOT the front runner.

if the iowans decide to go for bill, hooray, im voting for him too when i get my chance.

if the iowans give him the back of their hands, im not voting for him, im voting for obama (supposing that obama is still in the running).

if my 1st choice has no chance im not letting my 4th favorite win without at least trying to get my 2nd choice a chance.

i like letting the citizens of iowa and new hampshire weed out the losers for me so that i can pick my favorite from the "likely to win" list.

It works both ways - Mike Huckabee is polling second for the Republican nomination in Iowa. Not such a great choice.

It works both ways - Mike Huckabee is polling second for the Republican nomination in Iowa. Not such a great choice.

oh like there are great choices on the republican side.

every candidate has severe flaws.

how is huckabee doing in new hampshire?

Terribly, as one might expect. But given the disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshire the Republican race could be between Romney and Huckabee. If America is going to risk another Republican president, I can't think of two candidates I like less. Hopefully it won't matter.

how in the world would you limit the campaign season constitutionally?

in principle the parties could do so, at least for their candidates, merely by declaring that candidates must conform to x rules if they want party backing

in principle the parties could do so, at least for their candidates, merely by declaring that candidates must conform to x rules if they want party backing

and what would they bar them from doing? visiting iowa? talking about their desire for the nomination?

the only thing i can see that might have an effect is to limit the starting of an exploratory committee to no earlier than june 15th the year before the election. that would have some effect on the ability to collect up money, i think.

how about one election. no primary, just General.

so Yes, you can have 8 republicans and 8 democrats on the ballot, you will also have the Independants starting their campaigning at the same time.

and everyone starts at the same time... say, no announcements until jan 1 and no active campaigning before April (including commercials/flyers etc) with the elections in Nov.

Absolutely. One day for a national total. Using the preferential system preferably. Or some sort of runoff setup.

I'd support ANYthing that ended the colossal clusterfuck that is both the campaigns themselves and the race to have the earliest primary that's eventually gonna push the first primary to the day after Inauguration Day.

Absolutely. One day for a national total. Using the preferential system preferably. Or some sort of runoff setup.

winner gets President... 2nd place gets V.P?

how about one election. no primary, just General.
If you eliminate the primaries, the parties would still pick one person to give their endorsement too, they'd just move from an election format to picking one out on their own (maybe with private polls).

If you eliminate the primaries, the parties would still pick one person to give their endorsement too, they'd just move from an election format to picking one out on their own (maybe with private polls).

which would eliminate all these primary campainging that actually gives a head start to any indepenant candidates and will give third parties/independants an even start on campaigning.

if they go by private polls, then it's private, not televised, not advertised.

If they choose one. then who would they choose for the Dems?

and those not choosen can still run as independants.

National Primary Day would be hell in a handbasket, forcing bloated campaigns to focus on the bigger states. Personally, I think the parties should do away with the primary altogether. The present model of democratic primary elections makes the parties mere empty vessels to be filled with water, having no pernament idealogical standings. That may actually hurt democracy in this nation more than helip it. The old system--of having party bosses decide the candidate--may be corrupt and have its own fllaws, but you can be certain to get a real candidate that way.

winner gets President... 2nd place gets V.P?

It used to be done that way.

how about one election. no primary, just General.

so Yes, you can have 8 republicans and 8 democrats on the ballot, you will also have the Independants starting their campaigning at the same time.

and everyone starts at the same time... say, no announcements until jan 1 and no active campaigning before April (including commercials/flyers etc) with the elections in Nov.

That defeats the purpose of a party, though. Primaries aren't to pick the candidates that go to the next rung, at least not in theory. They are used to help the parties decide who they will nominate, and it doesn't make since to nominate everyone who wants to run.

Political parties should be able to choose their candidates however the hell they want to. The real problem is the first-past-the-post electoral system. We need direct popular presidential elections and an election system using one of the better Condorcet methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method) to determine the winner.