The presidential primary is out of loop no quesion about it as are some candidates

[merrill]

Is this any way to pick a presidential candidate for any party? I think not. The majority of states are left out of the process. How is that legitimate?

Is Iowa out of the loop? Yes Is the entire system out of the loop? Yes

Our government is always claiming the USA is about democracy. In that case allow the citizens to practice democracy by allowing citizens to vote on these issues in 2012:

Let's demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : FairVote.org | Instant Runoff Voting
Demand a change on the next ballot.

FairVote.org | Home

Let's have public financing of campaigns. Citizens cannot afford special interest money campaigns for it is the citizens that get left out. Let citizens vote on this issue.
Home | Public Campaign

Bribery of elected officials and bribed officials = the most stinky of all bribery!

Day in and day out our elected officials spend hours each day campaigning for campaign dollars.

 

[kyzr]

A rotating primary system makes the most sense. A national primary would be too expensive, and the MSM would pick the winner. As it is now, the "establishment" candidates are put in a safe state and the MSM declares the winner. The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter.
I've seen primaries & conventions since Nixon, and they are always the same. The GOP's are boring and the dem's are a zoo.

 

[merrill]

A rotating primary system makes the most sense. A national primary would be too expensive, and the MSM would pick the winner. As it is now, the "establishment" candidates are put in a safe state and the MSM declares the winner. The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter.
I've seen primaries & conventions since Nixon, and they are always the same. The GOP's are boring and the dem's are a zoo.

Fair Vote and Public Finance could be put to a vote. The supreme court has no authority on this aspect.

Should voters approve would the law of the land which likely frightens the leadership of both parties. After all leadership of both parties authorized a private corp to write the rules for debates which should be challenged.

Let the people call the shots!

 

[kyzr]

A rotating primary system makes the most sense. A national primary would be too expensive, and the MSM would pick the winner. As it is now, the "establishment" candidates are put in a safe state and the MSM declares the winner. The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter.
I've seen primaries & conventions since Nixon, and they are always the same. The GOP's are boring and the dem's are a zoo.

Fair Vote and Public Finance could be put to a vote. The supreme court has no authority on this aspect.

Should voters approve would the law of the land which likely frightens the leadership of both parties. After all leadership of both parties authorized a private corp to write the rules for debates which should be challenged. Let the people call the shots!

I see a lot of words but no coherent ideas. Please back-up whatever it is you are trying to say.

 

[merrill]

A rotating primary system makes the most sense. A national primary would be too expensive, and the MSM would pick the winner. As it is now, the "establishment" candidates are put in a safe state and the MSM declares the winner. The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter.
I've seen primaries & conventions since Nixon, and they are always the same. The GOP's are boring and the dem's are a zoo.

Fair Vote and Public Finance could be put to a vote. The supreme court has no authority on this aspect.

Should voters approve would the law of the land which likely frightens the leadership of both parties. After all leadership of both parties authorized a private corp to write the rules for debates which should be challenged. Let the people call the shots!

I see a lot of words but no coherent ideas. Please back-up whatever it is you are trying to say.

"The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter."

I disagree completely. Let the voters decide !

We do not know the expense a national primary. It is hard to believe it could be anymore expensive if regulated. Public Finance would limit spending which is good.

 

[merrill]

What is lacking is continuity. All states should be governed by the same rules etc etc
==============

Down the Rabbit Hole of Party Primary Rules
December 22, 2011

The time has almost come for all eyes to turn to Iowa and the rest of the states as they begin to hold their caucuses and primaries leading up to the 2012 election. But the world of primaries and caucuses is one of confusion, centering on party rules and overlapping state laws. My recent update of the Congressional and Presidential Primaries page on our website showed me just how complicated open, closed, semi-closed, and everything in between could be.

FairVote.org | Home

 

[kyzr]

Fair Vote and Public Finance could be put to a vote. The supreme court has no authority on this aspect.

Should voters approve would the law of the land which likely frightens the leadership of both parties. After all leadership of both parties authorized a private corp to write the rules for debates which should be challenged. Let the people call the shots!

I see a lot of words but no coherent ideas. Please back-up whatever it is you are trying to say.

"The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter."

I disagree completely. Let the voters decide !

We do not know the expense a national primary. It is hard to believe it could be anymore expensive if regulated. Public Finance would limit spending which is good.

Public funding makes no sense. If I want to run for president, do I get $10m to start?

 

[merrill]

I see a lot of words but no coherent ideas. Please back-up whatever it is you are trying to say.

"The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter."

I disagree completely. Let the voters decide !

We do not know the expense a national primary. It is hard to believe it could be anymore expensive if regulated. Public Finance would limit spending which is good.

Public funding makes no sense. If I want to run for president, do I get $10m to start?

Public funding takes the government out of corporate special interests hands therefore the people get the government back. As it should be.

 

[merrill]

Fair Elections is a practical, proven reform that puts voters in control of elections.

Rather than being forced to rely on special interest donors to pay for their campaigns, candidates have the opportunity to raise small donations from their grassroots base to qualify for Fair Elections funding, which ends their reliance on special interest campaign cash.

Being freed from the money chase means they have more time to spend with constituents, talking about issues that matter to them. When they enter office, they can consider legislation on the merits, without worrying about whether they are pleasing well heeled donors and lobbyists.

Fair Elections would return our government to one that is of, by, and for the people—not bought and paid for by special interests.

Fair Facts | Public Campaign

 

[merrill]

Every vote cast in every election should be of equal value, regardless of where a voter lives or for whom they vote. Popular will should never be subject to overturning by illogical, anachronistic mechanisms divorced from the ideal of one person, one vote. Nor should our system be such that candidates can win single-seat offices despite being opposed by the majority.

Americans deserve a system in which a diversity of voices can be part of the debate without fear of "spoiling" an election; one that is transparent, accountable and honors equality and majority rule.

Learn more about FairVote-backed reforms that facilitate fair elections:
National Popular Vote for President

The Electoral College system causes candidates for president to focus all their resources and attention on a small fraction of the electorate, rendering the vast majority of the American population utterly irrelevant in presidential elections.

Direct election of the president is the only way to ensure that every vote counts equally, and to that end, FairVote supports the National Popular Vote plan for president.

Learn more about the National Popular Vote Plan.


FairVote.org | Fair Elections

 

[francoHFW]

"Public financing makes no sense" but you don't know how it works? Sounds like the major Pub argument against Health Reform, and everything else....

 

[francoHFW]

The best thing about it would be the loss of influence of ALL special interests, and representatives would work on the people's business rather than raising money ALL THE TIME fcs. Of course the Pubs fight this tooth and nail.

 

[merrill]

Corporate control of government is not working well. It allows for all home loan scams when Bushes are in the area.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

A rotating primary system makes the most sense. A national primary would be too expensive, and the MSM would pick the winner. As it is now, the "establishment" candidates are put in a safe state and the MSM declares the winner. The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter.
I've seen primaries & conventions since Nixon, and they are always the same. The GOP's are boring and the dem's are a zoo.

Wouldn't have made a lot-more-sense explaining what the fuck you mean by a "rotating primary"....and, a little-less on editorializing????​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The presidential primary is out of loop no quesion about it as are some candidates

The same with you.....what the fuck is "out of loop" supposed to mean?????

What.....you feel some need to be recognized as some kind o' creator of a nonsensical-phrase.....or, are you merely handicapped with an Elementary School education, and your post was some kind o' entrance-exercise for Teabaggerdom???​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

A rotating primary system makes the most sense. A national primary would be too expensive, and the MSM would pick the winner. As it is now, the "establishment" candidates are put in a safe state and the MSM declares the winner. The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter.
I've seen primaries & conventions since Nixon, and they are always the same. The GOP's are boring and the dem's are a zoo.

Fair Vote and Public Finance could be put to a vote. The supreme court has no authority on this aspect.

Should voters approve would the law of the land which likely frightens the leadership of both parties. After all leadership of both parties authorized a private corp to write the rules for debates which should be challenged.

Let the people call the shots!

Let's hope the (supposed) authors of "the law of the land" have a more-accurate concept of complete-sentences than you've managed, so far.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

A rotating primary system makes the most sense. A national primary would be too expensive, and the MSM would pick the winner. As it is now, the "establishment" candidates are put in a safe state and the MSM declares the winner. The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter.
I've seen primaries & conventions since Nixon, and they are always the same. The GOP's are boring and the dem's are a zoo.

Fair Vote and Public Finance could be put to a vote. The supreme court has no authority on this aspect.

Should voters approve would the law of the land which likely frightens the leadership of both parties. After all leadership of both parties authorized a private corp to write the rules for debates which should be challenged. Let the people call the shots!

I see a lot of words but no coherent ideas.

Isn't there supposed to be some kind of age-limit (for entry), here?

If merrill isn't some Elementary School kid.....who just got his first-computer & 'Net-access....he's/she's gotta be some severely-handicapped Teabagger....possibly a recipient o' fetal-alcohol syndrome.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I see a lot of words but no coherent ideas. Please back-up whatever it is you are trying to say.

"The USSC already said that money is free-speech, so public funding is a non-starter."

I disagree completely. Let the voters decide !

We do not know the expense a national primary. It is hard to believe it could be anymore expensive if regulated. Public Finance would limit spending which is good.

Public funding makes no sense. If I want to run for president, do I get $10m to start?

I think you're expected to be reasonably-intelligent (enough), first, to do....

....the required-research.

Whatta concept, huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see a lot of words but no coherent ideas.

Something you and the OP have in common.

 

[American Horse]

The sequential groupings of primaries allow the prospective candidates to hone their skills, and be judged against the other candidates. If they seem to be viable, or if they speak to the issues the voters identify with, they will be given support in lieu of money, by knocking on doors, speaking out, and educating others to join the candidate’s support system.

As for money, internet contributions to the candidates can easily provide their funding to carry on until disqualified by the vote. Whether or not you like him, Rick Santorum almost has no money. He has stayed in, and may well come into the first tier in this Iowa caucus, and get the momentum to go on and do well.

He has done this almost entirely with "retail" campaigning, knocking on doors, driving an old pick-up truck to all the venues, meeting people on the ground. His lack of funds may have benefitted him rather than hurt him, because he has not had the advertising dollars to go negative, as those with money have, and did.

He actually could get the nomination. I’ve watched him in the US senate, and he is a qualified debater, and a sound conservative.

The primaries, as they are now configured maximize exposure for the candidates who can get their show off the ground, and separate the wheat from the chaff. A national primary would nullify all that, and would be more likely to elevate mediocrity by truncating the developmental/growth period. If that's your goal, then you aren't really for a better system.

If Huntsman or Johnson have fallen to single digit numbers, it’s because they don’t have the message the public is looking for. There have been enough debates where they’ve been present for the public to make a decision.

Meanwhile, Rick Perry is not out, and neither is Gingrich. Perry has money, lots of it, and Gingrich is like Santorum having very little. Candidates do not spring fully developed at the beginning of a primary season, they need to be rated by the voters, and each primary or set of primaries brings their qualifications into an ever closer focus.

Merrill, I think the idea of a national primary, if that’s your scheme, is a half-baked idea, and it won’t fail because the powers that be don’t want it,,, it’ll be because the public doesn’t want it. You seem to forget that we have down-ballot elections out here, for Governor, US Senate (in our local case), US Representatives, and on down the ticket to County Commissioner and township offices.

People like more than the final contest; they enjoy the whole process. It's the great American blood sport. I don't hear serious political mavens complaining. The complaints I hear come from sources of dubious intentions.