Not fair about the primaries

[MikeWaters]

that Texas should have such a large role, near the end of the primaries, in deciding the nominee.

Not fair at all. What a terrible system that a state can get greedy, and schedule themselves late and take on a huge disproportionate role in the process.

Disgusting.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Not fair at all. What a terrible system that a state can get greedy, and schedule themselves late and take on a huge disproportionate role in the process.

Disgusting.

But so very Texas.

[FMCoug]

The primary system needs "fixing" to make it more fair in general. The whole momentum thing makes the early states so much more important as well. Also, the fact that some states are "winner take all" and some are proportionate. I would advocate some sort of proportionate formula for all states. Incidentally, I think the same change should be made to the electoral college. If the vote is extemely close in CA, TX, FL, etc. the winner should not get all the electoral college votes. Maybe split the ones from the congressional district by popular vote % and the overall winner gets the other 2 or something along those lines.

[SeattleUte]

Texas runs the risk of being irrelevant by the time its primary comes around. I think it's asinine that Iowa and NH play such an important role. Mitt's Iowa- NH strategy only highlighted that this year. Unfortunately, since Obama and McCain were respectively launched in the Iowa and NH campaigns, and the Iowa campaign made Huckabee a contender and all savvy observers knew Mitt was done after his disappointments in these two primaries, this isn't going to change.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Texas runs the risk of being irrelevant by the time its primary comes around. I think it's asinine that Iowa and NH play such an important role. Mitt's Iowa- NH strategy only highlighted that this year. Unfortunately, since Obama and McCain were respectively launched in the Iowa and NH campaigns, and the Iowa campaign made Huckabee a contender and all savvy observers knew Mitt was done after his disappointments in these two primaries, this isn't going to change.

I'd like to commend you on this post (really), but you keep getting in the way.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

The primary system needs "fixing" to make it more fair in general. The whole momentum thing makes the early states so much more important as well. Also, the fact that some states are "winner take all" and some are proportionate. I would advocate some sort of proportionate formula for all states. Incidentally, I think the same change should be made to the electoral college. If the vote is extemely close in CA, TX, FL, etc. the winner should not get all the electoral college votes. Maybe split the ones from the congressional district by popular vote % and the overall winner gets the other 2 or something along those lines.

I seriously doubt you will see this kind of system happening anytime soon. One of the reasons for the electoral college is to encourage candidates to pay attention to smaller states. Your solution effectively converts the electoral college to a direct-vote system, which would consistently favor large states disproportionately.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

I seriously doubt you will see this kind of system happening anytime soon. One of the reasons for the electoral college is to encourage candidates to pay attention to smaller states. Your solution effectively converts the electoral college to a direct-vote system, which would consistently favor large states disproportionately.

Small states shouldn't have very much say. THe EC distorts their say all out of proportion. It's anti-democratic. The quickest way to mute the crazies is to get rid of the EC. What's wrong with straight democracy, Tex? The EC is obnoxious and archaic. It was instituted back when women and blacks couldn't vote. That's how wize people were then. What's wrong with us that we can't fix some horrible flaw in our system like this? Between the EC and the primaries' stupid rules Americans can't think they have much say in picking a president.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Small states shouldn't have very much say. THe EC distorts their say all out of proportion. It's anti-democratic. The quickest way to mute the crazies is to get rid of the EC. What's wrong with straight democracy, Tex? The EC is obnoxious and archaic. It was instituted back when women and blacks couldn't vote. That's how wize people were then. What's wrong with us that we can't fix some horrible flaw in our system like this? Between the EC and the primaries' stupid rules Americans can't think they have much say in picking a president.

It is geographic and as a denizen of a small state, I don't wish for the only voices to be hear to be those on the coasts. It was a concept of protecting the minority and regional opinions. I may not always like the opinions of the regions, but I don't wish to be governed by New Yorkers all the time. And the difference is small but significant. If you allow for straight democracy, candidates would campaign in about ten to fifteen places and ignore the voices elsewhere. They'd go to the fifteen largest metropolitan areas and the voices of the minority would die. As a member of the minority, I don't favor that.

You'd have these places electing the President:

. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA

2. New York, NY

3. Chicago, IL PMSA

4. Philadelphia, PA-NJ

5. Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV

6. Detroit, MI

7. Houston, TX

8. Atlanta, GA

9. Dallas, TX

10. Boston, MA-NH

11. Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

12. Phoenix-Mesa, AZ

13. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

14. Orange County, CA

15. San Diego, CA

Living in the fortieth largest metropolitan means we'd be ignored. The Electoral College creates a true national campaign and a President who had to campaign in all fifty states.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is geographic and as a denizen of a small state, I don't wish for the only voices to be hear to be those on the coasts. It was a concept of protecting the minority and regional opinions. I may not always like the opinions of the regions, but I don't wish to be governed by New Yorkers all the time. And the difference is small but significant. If you allow for straight democracy, candidates would campaign in about ten to fifteen places and ignore the voices elsewhere. They'd go to the fifteen largest metropolitan areas and the voices of the minority would die. As a member of the minority, I don't favor that.

You'd have these places electing the President:



Living in the fortieth largest metropolitan means we'd be ignored. The Electoral College creates a true national campaign and a President who had to campaign in all fifty states.

Um, your list is missing one of the most liberal, and largest metropolitan areas in the country...my very own SF Bay Area. Adding more credence to your argument.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I seriously doubt you will see this kind of system happening anytime soon. One of the reasons for the electoral college is to encourage candidates to pay attention to smaller states. Your solution effectively converts the electoral college to a direct-vote system, which would consistently favor large states disproportionately.

That's why I don't favor abolishing the EC completely. But a way to proportionately allocate votes from a state seems to make sense to me. I'd argue that the way it is now gives the big states too much power too. A candidate can squeak out a win in TX and get a ton of EC votes ... maybe enough to put him/her over the top.

Also, I said to give the 2 votes that are not from congressional districts to the overall winner of the state. So in small states, where those 2 votes are more meaningful, it would not change much.