Okay, I do not understand the primary system in politics at all. The primaries happen in all the states over a span of many months. That is clearly not fair though. States like Florida don't have a primary until March 9th or something. Let's say I wanted Clark. He's not even in the race. Plus, even worse, whoever starts out leading will almost certainly continue to lead, just like Kerry is now. It just snowballs. Now people voting in Super Tuesday will all most likely vote for Kerry because he's winning and they think, "well, everyone else voted for him so he must be good." Now, if everyone thinks like that, Kerry's lead will continue to build. If the primaries were held at the same time in every state, then we would get a fair result. It could be decided all in one shot, and no candidate could get a snowball effect and keep picking up more votes because people decide to just vote for whoever is leading when their primary comes around.

/rant

------------------
Kids must be shot by Monday.

Honesty tests for workers can't be trusted, report says.

Psychopaths are unpredictable.

Jay Leno's Headlines > Everything

That is one of the reasons that the news media obsesses over the Iowa caucus and the other early ones, they are the ones that can start someone off for the rest of the race.

There is no standard way to do it, because if I am not mistaken the Democratic party in each state decides how to run their primary. They are nothing built into the constitution.
------------------
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." -Isaac Asimov

[This message has been edited by Bobbert006 (edited March 02, 2004).]

I agree with bobafett.

------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.

Yeah, the way primaries are conducted are left up to eacg state. Don't fear though. Clasrk may end up being Kerry's running mate.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

A reason for them to do it this way is for campaigning reasons. A candidate will be able to go to more states and thus they will get to make a more informed decision on the matter as they will get exposed the to candidates more.

Chances are, your vote for Clark wouldn't have mattered much anyway.

I just mentioned Clark as an example. My favorite Democrat would be Edwards, but that does suck that the states decide.

------------------
Kids must be shot by Monday.

Honesty tests for workers can't be trusted, report says.

Psychopaths are unpredictable.

Jay Leno's Headlines > Everything

Not that I'm in the right country, but it seems this way you end up with one guy on top and no clingy hanger-ons(howard dean).

Yeah, but that one guy on top might just be on top because he's got the whole "snowball effect" going for him like I mentioned before.

If all the primaries were held on the same day, people would individually make up their own mind and vote right then and there. Then there'd be no "hanger-ons," cause we'd have the winner in just one day.

------------------
Kids must be shot by Monday.

Honesty tests for workers can't be trusted, report says.

Psychopaths are unpredictable.

Jay Leno's Headlines > Everything

It would cost more money. In a primary system, a candidate ideally grabs the lead early and forces his competitors drop out, leaving more resources to advertise for the general election.

Every state you don't have to advertise in is money that you can spend on real votes.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited March 02, 2004).]

Obviously you don't understand the primary election process. Just because a candidate "wins" a bunch of states, it doesn't mean that he automatically gets the party nomination. That doesn't happen until the party's national convention, AFTER all the primaries/caucuses. As for the whole "snowball" effect, that's only partially true. Granted, a weak candidate wouldn't be able to hold on as long, but if a candidate is strong enough, they can go all the way to the end (many drop out, like Edwards is rumored to have done today, to prevent the front runner from taking criticism from his own party). The fact that Howard Dean and Wesley Clark got only small numbers of votes should tell you something: they weren't strong enough candidates. Howard Dean didn't record a #1 finish in a single state, and eventually he dropped out. People aren't now voting for Kerry just because "he's going to win anyway", they're voting for him (largely) because it was what they were going to do in the first place. In many ways, the current system is actually BENEFICIAL to candidates who aren't frontrunners, because it allows them to focus on states whose primaries are further away. For example, Dennis Kucinich knew he wasn't going to win NH or Iowa, so he didn't spend a great amount of time there (he wound up finishing pretty far back in those states). However, he spent a bunch of time in Hawaii, while other candidates were in states with more immediate primaries. He was able to spread his message without a lot of rebuttal from his opponents. Kucinich posted a 2nd place finish in Hawaii, and he is a bonafide communist!

No, you have it all wrong finagrez. The delegates are ASSIGNED based on the ammount of votes a canidate gets. Once he/she gets the ~1800 delegate needed to get the nomination, he automatically gets the party's nomination.

------------------
Happy "Diseased" dud: You said I'd be like this guy. Boycotting everything..
Happy "Diseased" dud: ted kazcnisky. That's who it was.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wait, That's the unibomer.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wrong guy.

I didn't notice if someone already pointed out, but I was recently presented with another glaring flaw: Picture a disgruntled, fanatical and completely insane opposite partisan voting for someone who can't win? Ever wonder if this is why elections seem to keep becoming a choice between the lesser of two evils?

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited March 02, 2004).]