Hey, all you blue state people, check this out.

Check out the Texas Forum to see what having your vote count looks like. One of the reasons that us Dems in Texas haven’t had a foothold is that for all but the diehards political excitement comes from the Presidential race. For as long as I can remember the Presidential candidate was chosen a month before us Texans got to vote, and because there was no excitement from the top of the ticket to bring people out all of our down-ticket candidates lost votes.

The record primary turnout in Tarrant County was in 2000 when the Republican primary netted 84,000 votes. This year, at the end of early voting, there were 101,000 Dem votes cast and the Primary was still to come. Because the planets aligned and the moon was in the seventh house, we got a protracted battle for Presidential candidate that carried into our state. In practical terms this means that in my precinct there were 47 Dem primary votes in 2000, 28 in 2004 and about a thousand in 2008. In years past our precinct convention was held in the phone booth outside the little church where we vote, this year we filled half of the 250 capacity church. That’s 100 people who are dedicated enough to come back for 2 or more hours after voting. That’s 100 people who gave me their addresses, email and phone numbers for organizing. Beats hell out of 28.

Is it any wonder that Florida and Michigan moved their primaries in defiance of the National Party? They sacrificed their delegates to this election to secure an early primary in coming years. That’s no way to have a state’s votes count and the people’s voice be heard.

We as a party must fix the primary system to give a voice to all states. Join us late voting states in asking the DNC to move all Primaries to an earlier date. It would be good for the party and good for America.

gets my vote

That would heavily favor someone with strong name recognition, and I don't like that.

Do you realize that for the first time in my memory a primary candidate actually ran an ad in Texas?

Perhaps we should just give it all to Iowa and New Hampshire and cancel the rest of the primaries. Save a lot of money.

Or we could use the Dibold solution.

I have to say I really resent being told that my vote shouldn't count.

I also think that the order in which the regions vote should rotate each time, so that each region is "first" at some point.

I could also be fine with strung out primaries like we have, but I really think we should rotate the order in which states vote. I really don't mind if NH and Iowa stay first, because I actually think that is a cool tradition for the folks there. But I think the rest of the states should rotate.

it is as Lisa0825 said. If we did that, the nominees would be Clinton and Giuliani.

Let Iowa and New Hampshire caucus whenever they want. If they choose to ignore Primary Day, say in April or May, so be it.

It would definitely be Clinton/Giuliani. I agree that IA and NH have an unfair advantage.

and each region has it's primary the same day, one region per month over 4-6 months

that would work eh?

that needs to be addressed if we want a viable national party for the future and not just a few years at a time.

The Republicans shorten the process by being all-or-nothing. If a state goes 49-51 they disenfranchise 49% of the voters. We, on the other hand, award delegates proportionately so every vote counts right up to the time 2100 delegates are awarded and then the rest of the country is disenfranchised.

On the one hand we need enough time to know and vett the candidates and on the other the winner needs to prepare for the General.

There has to be some way to make this fair and equitable.

It would certainly shorten the primary season.

My biggest concern is the "little" candidates not having enough time to let them get their voices to the people....

Of course, that happens anyway, regardless of the primary schedule.

easier to set up, media buys could cover the whole region usually instead of paying the big bucks for New Hampshire buying Boston time. if it was regional, buy in Boston and hit the whole region probably

one bus could take the smaller crews all over with lots of stops to talk to lots of voters without spending hours on a plane to criss cross the country

it's not perfect but a heck of a lot more logical than the system we have now....

I think it would work.

Most people don't start paying attention until a week or two before the elections. It would be impossible for candidates to campaign nation-wide for a one-day primary. It would guarantee that whichever candidate went into the race with the most name recognition would be the default winner, because the voters wouldn't have a chance to get to know the candidates.

I'd like to see them remove the heavy front-end schedule they used this year, spread it out and give voters of more states a longer time to get to know the candidates.

What I would like to see, as well, is Instant Run-off voting, where people's second & third choices could play have some influence if their first choice candidate loses.



:hi:

Rank your top three choices. That way people supporting "lesser" candidates don't have to worry about "wasting" their vote, and candidates can rack up the second and third place votes and come away with a more accurate picture of their level of support. I suspect Biden and Richardson's night in Iowa would have been very different had something like this been in place.

But certainly making the two major election days a year - national holidays.

Sonia

If they'd do that I'll guarantee we'll see an increase in turnout. It's damn difficult for some people to be able to get to the polls and still keep their jobs.

That's not the way a Democracy is supposed to work.

Politics begin on a local level. We've gained many new local voices which could help us turn things around locally in the future. Rather than complaining about states with unmotivated Democrats something needs to be done to make them feel as if their votes do matter.

The primary system doesn't work to the advantage of all states the way it is currently set up. If not a single day for our primary then we should at the least rotate who gets the early slots.

Personally, I think eliminating the electoral college would boost Democratic turnout in "red states" similar to how being relevant in the primary has in Texas. That's something else we need to review and consider in the future.

who needs a presidential campaign that lasts an entire YEAR? How much money and time these valuable people (senators)
are wasting canvassing the country; fighting, wearing their voices and their families out!

we could do the whole thing from Sept until November, say, and leave all those other months for
letting them do their elected job!

And since the campaign season has started a lot earlier, the candidates could still travel to EACH state for voters to get to know them.

I also propose that the League of Women Voters conduct debates instead of the corporate owned media.

...but have a lottery to determine the order. Move them to Saturdays, as well.

:hi:

Rotating primaries so every part of the US counts at some point.

Sonia

in order?

That way we can keep things a bit more spread out, candidates can campaign in the whole area, and each area gets its turn going first.

My husband suggested this to me, but at least at first look, it seems to work fairly...

Start in Feb.. one a month.. plenty of time for candidates to travel & debate

:kick:

I think it does need to be made a little more fair for the states that seem to be left in the dust.