A 48-state contest? I wish.
May 30th 2008 22:08
The Democrats are meeting this weekend to decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegates. By initially taking away all of those states' delegates, the DNC disenfranchised millions of Democratic voters. In doing so, they have opened up the (legitimate) argument that they are having a 48-state contest. How can an election be considered legitimate if only 48 states are given a voice?
Well, I'd be THRILLED if as many as 48 states had a real voice in the GOP contest. That would be a big improvement over the dog-and-pony show that occurred this election season. Mitt Romney withdrew from an already emaciated field after 29 states had voted. Huckabee, the last reasonably viable non-McCain alternative, dropped out after 40 states had voted. It's a travesty that 21 states only had two real Republicans (if you can call them that) to choose from. Don't the opinions of those 21 states matter? How is it fair that some states go first and get to choose the nominee? Of course, they still go through the motions and vote in the "afterthought" states, but those primaries are meaningless. For those states, the process is about as democratic as those Saddam-era Iraq elections where his name was the only one on the ballot.
We should have a single primary date when ALL the states vote on the full slate of candidates. It's disgraceful that some states' voters count more than other states' voters. It's not right and the whole process should be revamped. Either that, or we need to drop the whole pretense of having "every vote count". As it is currently, we're just kidding ourselves.
Well, I'd be THRILLED if as many as 48 states had a real voice in the GOP contest. That would be a big improvement over the dog-and-pony show that occurred this election season. Mitt Romney withdrew from an already emaciated field after 29 states had voted. Huckabee, the last reasonably viable non-McCain alternative, dropped out after 40 states had voted. It's a travesty that 21 states only had two real Republicans (if you can call them that) to choose from. Don't the opinions of those 21 states matter? How is it fair that some states go first and get to choose the nominee? Of course, they still go through the motions and vote in the "afterthought" states, but those primaries are meaningless. For those states, the process is about as democratic as those Saddam-era Iraq elections where his name was the only one on the ballot.
We should have a single primary date when ALL the states vote on the full slate of candidates. It's disgraceful that some states' voters count more than other states' voters. It's not right and the whole process should be revamped. Either that, or we need to drop the whole pretense of having "every vote count". As it is currently, we're just kidding ourselves.
| 182 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
I may be wrong, but weren't the primaries originally scheduled seperately because of the travel time required between states? Wasn't it intended to give the candidates the chance to meet the people and make their cases? That isn't necessary anymore, in the electronic age. We need to make some changes in the way elections are held, count all the votes, and not demand endless recounts if we lose. I hope the libs/dems are listening!
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
A one-day primary could still have some problems. Candidates would pay a lot more attention to bigger states. Of course, if the population is that much larger in those states, they should get more attention. Nevertheless, a one-day primary could take a lot of the money out of the process. And, as a result, they wouldn't owe as many "favors" as they do now.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Guys on your Ideal it will never happen, because A one day primary makes to much sense, but we can keep hoping.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate