Why not a 50 state primary?
- added January 26, 2008
- 2 responses
-
-
-
-
- zenbeer
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- News and Politics (45985)
- Politics (34958)
- Election (1792)
- President (711)
- 2008 (578)
- Election 2008: Super Tuesday (132)
- Primary (41)
- Caucus (5)
Here's what Senator John Glenn said about it in 1985:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DF1139F931A15755C0A963948260
''It would simplify the nominating process, eliminate the disproportionate influence of early primary and caucus states, force candidates to focus on truly national issues and dramatically reduce the length of the primary season,'' he said
Anyone see any similarities with what's happening now?
-zen
-
a 50 state primary would basically be like a general election.
why not: because the big states / general population is not as concerned and informed about the candidates / issues as primary state super delegates..also prolly aren't as easily swayed by the media, polls* etc.
expanding primaries nationwide would make a painfully long, wasteful campaign season....and most likely give more power to industry / wealthiest cands and all that shite.
see similarities: yes always
-
Well, it'd be a general eletion, but only for ONE PARTY'S candidate. So it's the same as a primary, only it'd be done in 50 states on the same day.
It would also remove the undue influence Iowa and New Hampshire has on the process early on - about 400,000 people affect the early contests which in turn, leaves the other 45-48 states or so unable to influence second tier candidates with much lower funding into the first tier for example.
It's not a silver bullet, but it'd be a huge improvement over the antiquated caucus system. It would help level the playing field.
-zen
