« Volunteering for execution | Main | In Support of Civil Unions »

March 16, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00d834ee369653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Primary Reform:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

LAK

I'm not sure why each state even has a primary now. Why not just a national primary? It's a bit of a race to the bottom otherwise. It's not as if we are electing electors anymore. Hell it's time to get rid of states altogether so they stop undermining each other in taxes and environmental regulation, and primary timing/importance.

Joan A. Conway

Primaries have an indirect effect of either keeping the voters home, or encouraging voters in another sister state to correct the imbalance of the other state's winner.

Usually though, as I believe to be true, it keeps the voters home, when they know a candidate has won in their region, and they don't think their state can control the outcome any differently.

The Pre-Selection Process has its own Terms and Conditions, and any arbitration amongst those states without the Pre-Selection Process would not be affective in waiving that state's primary agreement with its own general methodology, if the winner took all or if the proportional methodology was used.

Personally, the winner takes all, much like the Delaware court situation, stops the voter from making an inform choice if something comes up in the meantime.

The winner takes all is definitely not Massachusetts, right?

But an Eastern negotiation ploy, "All-for-one, and One-for-all!" Of the Three Musketeers fame!

California is a state that prizes itself of seizing the moment! Literally, then when it has an arbitrary date for its primaries.

The guess work creates voter suspense. Has anyone done a study on which state generates the most votes and who it occurs?

What are the factors that leads to getting the voters to vote?

This would be my concern.

Competition amongst the states, as long as it is not unconstitutional or against federal laws, is most appropriate, LAK.

Why would anyone care to describe our government as a dual jurisdictional one, if their was conformity over each states' taxes and environmental regulations, and primary timing/importance, etc.?

Even at that we can fight the contrarian view with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 2, and Article VI, of the U.S. Constitution, to challenge being harmed or injured by its implementation.

It is all about the exchange of money, the training of politicans, and the cozy-up to the state's contributors that makes the primaries big state business.

What is the most expensive state to get elected in? New York or California, probably.

Who dominants the scene? The auto industry, the movie industry, big oil, big banking, or Bill Gates?

BE

Why not the other way round: Winner take all at early stages, and PR later no. Then it would not be so crucial for California to rush to the front.

FJ Stratford

The bigger question is should we be having caucuses? They are unrepresentative, undemocratic, and stupid.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.