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

March 16, 2007


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


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?


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.