Then my vote would actually count.
2007-12-03 10:18:47 · 7 answers · asked by Zee 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I agree wholeheartedly. The idea of one small state after another having such an influence on who will be our next president is ridiculous. They should have one day for a national primary, when the nominees are chosen.
And how about making that day in August or September, and prohibiting campaigning for the primary until maybe June. Then we'd only have to listen to this stuff for a few months, instead of four years!
But it would take a Constitutional Amendment, I'm afraid, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
Vote for Rudy!
2007-12-03 10:26:37 · answer #1 · answered by Rick K 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
That sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately it is the individual states per the Constitution who can do that when they like. They are actually voting for delegates to conventions who are pledged to a particular candidate. If no one candidate gets enough votes at the convention for the first vote than some delegates are instructed to change their vote if they see fit. Warren Harding, for example, was selected on the 103rd ballot I believe, at the 1920 Republican convention. In California and other states there is a winner take all primary where all delegates from the state vote for the same candidate. Other states may split based on the percentage in their state.
2007-12-03 18:32:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree that the primary nominations should be held on the same day across the country to prevent people from saying, 'well so and so hasn't got a chance because they didn't get the first two biggies'.
No states should have that kind of influence across our country to set the pace. What kind of fairness is that anyway?
We need to elect people based on issues - not parties for President. What difference does party make once they become President anyway? They are supposed to be bipartisan and represent the voice of the US citizens regardless of party.
Congress is where party matters because of voting on policies and running up taxes for unconstitutional bills.
May the best candidate for the US citizens of America win! For me personally, that person is Ron Paul all the way because I believe he is the best person for the job to keep America free and restore our Constitutional government! Ron Paul for truth, liberty and justice - the USA way!
2007-12-03 19:15:41 · answer #3 · answered by Naturescent 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, if you were a voter in a small state, you might think--and rightfully so--that the candidates would spend little time and have little interest in courting your vote. As much as your vote would count for something, voters in states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Hawaii and the like might feel their votes would be worthless.
Of course, being a voter from a large state (California) that has its vote late in the season, often the decision is made. But there is balance in the long run. In the general election, your vote is favored over those in small states.
Cheers.
2007-12-03 18:57:36 · answer #4 · answered by blueevent47 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No need for even a primary. Just put all of them on a ballot and vote. Game, set, match.
2007-12-03 18:45:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I really do not like this trend to move primaries earlier and earlier. Nor do I like that someone can register with one party and then go register with the other as it leads to people intentionally just trying to vote against someone instead of for someone.
2007-12-03 18:22:34 · answer #6 · answered by sociald 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm all for it, think of the wasted money saved, remember they are getting matching funds from tax payer dollars
2007-12-03 19:19:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋