This may sound like the dumbest suggestion ever...

[Bicoastal]

...but instead of this state-by-state, Iowa-goes-first and Florida-doesn't-count, pledged delegate and superdelegate, caucus and primary hoo-ha...

...would it just make more sense for all of the candidates to campaign across the country for several months, then have one big nationwide primary, and the popular-vote winner of said primary is the party's nominee?

Just sayin'...:shrug:

[rinsd]

1. I like the idea of rotating regional primaries held 2 weeks apart starting in late Jan

[Faygo Kid]

2. That's a good idea. No way would I support a single national primary.

Candidates should be vetted over time. A single national primary would give the candidate with the most name recognition and money virtually an automatic win. I don't think that's healthy at all. But, it's time to break the Iowa-New Hampshire monopoly. But instead of rotating regional primaries - which would also skew the vote (see, the South), I would rotate a combination of states. Start, say with four: Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, New York. Four years later, South Carolina, Colorado, Michigan, Oregon. Mix 'em up. Go for geographic and demographic diversity.

[OnionPatch]

9. I like your plan.

The Diverse Combo plan sounds great to me. :thumbsup:

[JimGinPA]

12. That Would Make Sense nt

[frazzled]

3. I don't think that might be such a good idea

It takes a lot of time for people to get to know what candidates are about. A single-day nationwide primary vote would probably inevitably yield the candidate with the most name recognition as the winner. (The Republicans might have ended up with Giuliani as their candidate in this scenario.)

The current system has several benefits (in addition to its admitted messiness):

1. Candidates can test drive their campaigns in a few manageably-sized states and gain strength and recognition for later contests. Without this, lesser known candidates with less money would never even have a chance. The early states can be springboards for a campaign that might otherwise never be able to get off the ground. This gives us more choice in the end.

2. Candidates can gain momentum over time.

3. Buyer's remorse has time to set in.

4. Later contests can put a check on earlier contests.

5. A national primary would necessarily rely almost solely on television and radio advertising; debates could help--but we know how many few people who vote actually watch them. Besides, the best debaters aren't always the best presidents or even presidential candidates.

[Aussie leftie]

4. an excellent idea

except that there should be preferential voting, meaning that you list your candidates in order of preference.

[Recursion]

5. I'm sure Hillary would have preferred that...

That gives an enormous advantage to candidates going in with a lot of money and name recognition.

I think we've learned a lot about our two candidates' leadership and administrative skills from watching them campaign, and it's ultimately a good thing to see.

[MadBadger]

6. I like the current system's schedule

I think retail politics is very important. I think Iowa voters were much more informed of the candidates than anybody else.

[Johnny__Motown]

7. If you did that then the "name recognition" vote wins out, Unknown candidates need a smaller stage

[MediaBabe]

8. It isn't a dumb suggestion but it wouldn't work.

The small states would never agree to it because a single day primary would end completely any influence or bit of power they might have. The candidates would simply HAVE to focus only on the large many delegate states otherwise they could never get elected.

I read a very good article about this subject last week that explained the problem well. I'll try to find it and post you a link.

[Beregond2]

10. Primary

I like the idea that someone has floated of four regional primaries, in an order that rotates. I think it is too much to expect the candidates to cover the whole country all at once. And watching them campaign over a period of time in different areas give one a better sense of who they are and how they might function as President.

[KitchenWitch]

11. Almost as dumb as the abolishment of the Electoral College and letting the popular vote in the GE

determine who our president will be.