How do you think the primary results would differ if held in Utah instead of Iowa? Georgia instead of New Hampshire? Are we excluding certain races and religions based on geography? Is it time to have the initial primaries moved to states that are more representative of our ethnic diversity?
2007-11-12 07:00:13 · 10 answers · asked by CHARITY G 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm referring to the chronological order of the primaries . . .
2007-11-12 07:17:15 · update #1
The two "first states" are just that because of tradition. That is how it has been. They don't hold much power except to elimnate some of the candidates. After they dumped the Democrat frontrunner HOWARD DEAN "YEEEHAAAA" from the top spot the Democrats were able to get on with choosing their candidate -- John Kerry.
I think a more helpful approach, at least for the Democrats, is to put up candidates that Americans can relate to. This year, unfortunately, we have the choice of a stable of the usual suspects, a black man, and a woman, at least she says so.
The Republican side is busy trying to be the most conservative, the real conservative or the religious conservative.
Everyone is trying to convince us that they understand us better and will represent us better because "I'm just like you."
Yet the one redeaming quality of our country is that they are nothing like you and me. They are merely mouthpieces with price tags.
Oh back to your question. There should be only four primaries. First, Iowa and N.H. because it is tradition for whatever that's worth. Second, the mid industrial and north east states, so that you liberals can have your say. Then the southern states so the conservatives can decide who is more God-like. And finally, the 10 biggest states just to decide the whole thing and get on with the damn election.
2007-11-12 07:19:44 · answer #1 · answered by morstar150 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know that any state can claim to be more representative of our ethnic diversity than any other. I do question our primary system since candidates tend to throw in the towel if they don't have good results in the first 2 or 3 primaries. That gives a lot of power to states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Being from Ohio, I'm tired of seeing good candidates give up before my state can even have a say.
2007-11-12 07:07:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Last time I checked all these states have primaries,or caucuses to determine their choice of candidates. New Hampshire law states that their primary should be the first in the nation. They have continually moved the date to insure that it remains so. I hardly see how this excludes anyone. The Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary certainly gives a boost to the front runners, but Super Tuesday should give us a good idea of who the candidates will be.
2007-11-12 07:13:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I feel the same way, and have said this all my life. It is the most common argument against the primary schedule. When you break down Iowa and New Hampshire, their demographics are not representative of America, not to mention the economies and other characteristics.
The primary schedule should shift every election or be on on national primary day.
2007-11-12 07:04:41 · answer #4 · answered by Frank 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IMO, all the primaries should be held on the same day. Every eligible should citizen should be required to go to the polls (or cast an absentee ballot) even if "abstain" is how they choose to mark their ballot. The polls should be open for 24 hours and all non-essential businesses should close.
And to directly address your question, yes, states with earlier primaries DO have undue influence on the outcome of national elections.
2007-11-12 07:12:34 · answer #5 · answered by kill_yr_television 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is primary format and timing not a state decision in the first place? How much earlier can we bear?
2007-11-12 07:04:50 · answer #6 · answered by and_y_knot 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ever on the grounds that i can keep in mind (and that's a protracted time) human beings have voted alongside ethnic and/or non secular lines. Irish continually voted for Irish. German for German. Italian for Italian. Protestant for Protestant, and so on., and so on. Or it replaced into for the guy with the superb campaign music, or the superb hair, or the nicest spouse. only those days have the truly subjects come into play, or perhaps now, many, many human beings nonetheless vote for those they maximum heavily p.c. out with...comparable race, comparable ethnic historic past. it truly is only human nature. it won't be able to be the superb way, besides the undeniable fact that it truly is the main uncomplicated.
2016-10-02 05:11:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are fine as they are and do not really mean that much accept getting that State a little attention. Peace
2007-11-12 07:08:50 · answer #8 · answered by PARVFAN 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Every state has a primary.
Pay attention
2007-11-12 07:04:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Morman would win Utah...........and will....
Edwards might win Ga
2007-11-12 07:04:15 · answer #10 · answered by richard t 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋