Which Do You Prefer?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[cyclezealot]

1. A national primay

and a requirement on the electronic media that free air time be granted to candidates with a modest and reasonable fundrasing record.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. I agree

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. That Wouldn't Give The Candidates Enough Time To Make The Case

How about four regional primaries in successsive weeks to be the scheduling of the primaries to be chosen at random...

[Tesha]

10. How much time do they need? Days? Weeks? Months? Or four years?

If they can't make a cogent case in about five minutes (with
details provided over the next hour), they ought to find a
new line of work.

Tesha

[MADem]

4. No rights for states? The FEDERAL government deciding everything?

That whole "states' rights" shit is a two-edged sword, see?

On the one hand, you have that discrimination business, on the other, you'd want this federal government calling the shots? No California stem cell research? No states telling the Feds to jam it when they try to overstep?

How about a Coalition of States AGREEING to hold their primaries in concert, and let's just leave the Feds out of it entirely? It could be an agenda item at the next governor's conference...the governors could go back to their states and put it on the ballots....

[Renew Deal]

5. That automatically eliminates any low profile candidate like Kucinich

or Bill Clinton in 1992. It will become all about the money.

[gene430]

6. One National Primary Day

What's wrong with one national primary day getting top candidate from every party that then go into the general election.

Hell before long this is going to be as complicated as the college bowl system. Hey that's it, put the NCAA in charge of it.

[Renew Deal]

7. What's wrong is that it will no longer be about the best candidate. It will be a personality contest

It will be all about money for the best known personality. The current system usually generates the best candidates on things that matter such as issues. The current system is much better than a national primary. I think the schedule should be pushed back and spread out some, but that's about it.

[cyclezealot]

8. I doubt that

Look to how states do it. Such as Maine and Arizona. There they have an element of public funding of elections. A modest degree of fundraising or petitioning suffice to show public support. Such a plan would not give the non -rich less chance but more. Quite the opposite of the hodge podge of state primaries, which will likely end up costing the public over one billion for total election spending. / Kucinich has raised something like 2 million dollars. That should be more than sufficient qualifications to give him decent air time. Unlike now.

[LWolf]

9. I prefer the following plan:

In the primary, each candidate gets 10 million dollars from public funds, and not a penny more than that can be spent, including by outside groups.

All polling will be illegal.

The primary lasts 6 months, and it doesn't matter who goes first. It doesn't matter because all voting will be done by mail, and there will be ONE vote counting date after the last primary. No ballot is opened before that day, ample time is provided to conduct an ethical, accurate vote, and no vote counts are announced until the last count is official. Then they are all announced at the same time.

There are ample, abundant debates. In these debates, questions are constructed by citizen groups, not media heads, moderators are pulled from local citizen or democratic groups, and every candidate is asked every question, and given an equal amount of time to respond. No one candidate gets more talking time, or different questions, than another. Perhaps each of the debates could be centered on only one issue, to allow for a more substantive discussion of each issue.

In the general election, each candidate can again have $10 million, again from public coffers with no private donations allowed, and not a penny more.

Again, all polling will be illegal.

Again, multiple debates based on the above format, to include all 3rd party and independent candidates as well as the R and D.

Again, all ballots will be mailed in, and the count will start at the same time, as above. Again, no results will be announced until the last ballot is verified and counted, and all official counts are done.

For the primaries, the GE, and every other damned day of every year: a fairness doctrine that keeps mass media neutral.

The only real question here is this:

What is the most effective process of narrowing the candidates who can qualify to be on the primary ballot down, without allowing outside money into the process?

Which I explained in post # 4 in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3915566&mesg_id=3915566

[rucky]

11. I like the idea of hearing from delegates

and I like the idea of voting privately.

and I like the idea of having a second choice.

[youthere]

12. I've participated in primaries and in caucuses...

and I prefer the caucus. I think it's a much more thorough examining of candidates. With a primary, you walk in an cast your vote, in the caucus they are all examined for their pros and cons...they are also held up against possible GOP contenders to find the best candidate for the GE.

I'd love to see each state go to a kind of hybrid of the two, because I think the primary states are really missing out.

[flvegan]

13. Steel cage, last candidate standing, no DQ match.

Let's really make a circus out of it.