General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy shouldn't a candidate have to compete in every state?
If it is a question of time shorten the primary schedual.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)If so, they are deemed to have competed and lost in those states, by failing to file hte required paperwork by the deadline.
Skink
(10,122 posts)former9thward
(32,064 posts)That would give candidates even less time to campaign! There are 50 states plus various far flung territories that select delegates. No way is there enough time to campaign in all of them.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Was this a trick question?
How about having one national primary to select the party's candidate? Along the way abolish the stupid regressive electoral college in favor of direct national election with a requirement for a majority, not a plurality of the votes and a run-off process (instant or otherwise) to obtain that majority.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)The New Hampshire constitution requires it to hold the first primary in the nation. Iowa isn't a primary, but they've been in a perpetual battle that's pushed things back from around early April to January. Eventually they'll be holding the primary before the general election that's four years out!!!