2006-12-27 07:11:30 · 10 answers · asked by Snowshoe 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
YES! Oh please, yes!
The current system gives too much voice to some states while essentially ignoring others. It makes no sense.
2006-12-27 07:13:08 · answer #1 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i've got faith that is a much greater effective gadget than the present one the place NH and Iowa have lots greater capability than different states have. That sucks! Having a countrywide well-known could scale returned the form of debates, shorten the form of months in the election, and shrink the quantity of money that applicants could could boost. additionally, each and every candidate could be in the race in all 50 states, no longer basically like the present gadget the place the poorer applicants are eradicated early.
2016-10-28 11:57:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No!
As I live in NH I know that will never happen as our primary date is automatically set before anyone elses by law!!
Holding primary's on the same day does not give states enough time to know candidates, and many people in NH have met them all!
Florida should not be allowed to vote in an election as they are so corrupt!
2006-12-27 07:21:19 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes. And voting in the general election should be a three day process, to give people plenty of time to get to the polls, and news organizations should be prohibited from speculating on the winner until all votes are counted.
2006-12-27 07:15:20 · answer #4 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The primary system should be abolished. Selection of candidates should be made by the parties at their conventions, as was intended when those conventions were created.
.
2006-12-27 08:26:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are plusses & minuses.
Biggest plus is that all states would have an impact proportional to their populations.
Biggest minus is that it would give an enormous advantage to the best known & best funded candidates. Even more than there is now.
2006-12-27 07:15:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. It would assist in the devolution of the current plutocracy and the further evolution of a truer democracy.
2006-12-27 07:20:23 · answer #7 · answered by Modern Day Macedonian 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I side with Angelhunter whole heartedly, although it pains me to say it, since our political viewpoints couldn't be any more distant from each other!
A good idea is a good idea, no matter who voices it.
2006-12-27 12:39:03 · answer #8 · answered by peaceinmytime 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, without a doubt. This will ensure fairness.
2006-12-27 07:13:51 · answer #9 · answered by barter256 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Great Idea. I have been saying the same for years. Thanks.
2006-12-27 07:18:25 · answer #10 · answered by jcboyle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋