<p>because we may not have a winner after the primaries are over.</p>
<p>I would love to see a convention where the candidate is actually picked. Just for a change of pace. Bring back the smoke filled rooms and the wheeling and dealing.</p>
<p>It’s been so boring during our voting lives.</p>
<p>Just once, I would like to see something like, “The Best Man”, the movie with Cliff Robertson and Henry Fonda.</p>
<p>I would like to see an election law which states that the results of all state primaries are held secret until the last state has had its election - this would also apply to exit poll data. Also, no state could have a primary until April and they would have to be completed by June 1.</p>
<p>Same here, mm. I appreciate the argument that dark-horse candidates have longer odds when they have to make a good showing in several big, expensive states instead of one or two. But it’s just outrageous that the voters of NH and IA virtually get to pick the nominees, and people in my state have effectively no voice in the matter.</p>
<p>I have no problem with the primaries being a winnowing process where later voters can take into account the performance of candidates in earlier primaries. However, it’s a problem that IA and NH are so unrepresentative of the country as a whole. I would pick small to medium sized sized states with various types of diversity to go early: Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Tennessee and <em>then</em> maybe include Iowa and New Hampshire in the mix.</p>
<p>Hmm, not always true. GW lost in New Hampshire in '00.</p>
<p>I think early primaries are a Bad Thing. With the rush to move primaries up, only the candidates that can raise big money early have any chance at all. If you don’t have, say, $100 million in the bank by Christmas, you can kiss your chances good bye. There will be no way for someone with comparatively limited money, but the right skills and ideas, to get to know the American people over four or five months and win some of the later, big primaries. </p>
<p>I agree with WashDad - our campaign seasons are getting longer all the time, which just means that he (or she) with the most cash will inevitably win. Plus, it means that many more campaign ads, that many more calls for money, that many more people knocking on my front door to tell me about Candidate A, many more swiftboat attacks, etc., etc. </p>
<p>I get particularly irritated when someone who is supposed to be representing me in the Senate, Congress, or Governor’s mansion spends their time working to get a different job.</p>
<p>“he (or she) with the most cash will inevitably win.”</p>
<p>This is only so because such a large proportion of voters choose to make their decisions based on TV and radio ads. That’s the expensive part of a campaign.</p>