Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
- Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
or sign in to load a different list.
Loading...Saving...
Loading...Saving...
Hey, kid! Wake up! It's 2008!
philmart6153 4 years ago
It would have been better if you said the awesome power of U2. ;)
cake3303 4 years ago
No. Simply put, the primary system is something that focuses too much weight on issues like ethanol and whatever New Hampshire people care about and less on what the rest of the country cares about.
The political parties ought to actually let democracy work and let the candidates run in a popular election within the party from start to finish...and not allow these two low-population states carry the day.
agbook2007 4 years ago
Baha'i voting system is the best I have looked at. Have a look at Bahai on wikipedia for more on that voting system.
RoddyYoung 5 years ago
One idea is to have the 20 smallest states vote first (maybe with Iowa, NH, and SC voting a few days before the others), the next 20 larger states vote a couple weeks later, and the 10 biggest states vote a few weeks after that. The small states will narrow the field to the top few, the medium states will narrow it down to the top 2, and the large states will have the final decision.
GhostCow 5 years ago
okay, but why? sorry if its obvious to everyone else, i'm not so intelligent at politics.
dinnerbydinner 5 years ago
With New Hampshire being one of the most libertarian states in the nation, I kind of like the fact that they vote first, even if it hasn't always pushed more freedom oriented candidates into the lead. Maybe with the Democrats moving Nevada's primary up as well will help a bit more, especially if the Republicans decide to follow suit (and they might want to, if they don't want their nominee to get lost under the media coverage of the democratic nominee).
GhostCow 5 years ago
i think the primaries should all be held on the same day for then we will know who the nominees are right away
republicanconfederat 5 years ago
Actually, a lot of states (e.g. California, Illinois) are trying to move their primaries earlier to contend with New Hampshire's. This has been all over the news lately!
cynicalgirl77 5 years ago
Exactly - so is that a good way for primaries to work?
EmergencyCheese 5 years ago
Sure; I mean, it's up to the states, obviously, and I think it's totally legit for each state to want the attention that Iowa and New Hampshire famously get. Haha this probably isn't the cutting-edge debate you were hoping to generate, but I have trouble getting worked up about this issue... I think the open/closed primary question is much more interesting, though I don't have strong opinions on that either.
cynicalgirl77 5 years ago
Yes they are trying to do that, but in these state's laws it is stated that if any other states move their primaries, then NH and Iowa's primaries are automatically pushed back so that they are first.
bojanglefunk 5 years ago
do you think these states know that, and are therefore doing this on purpose? why would they do that? i have no idea.
dinnerbydinner 5 years ago