|Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: In the wake of Super Tuesday, would you support a 50-state primary?|
|No. A 50 state primary means that the states with the high delegate counts would get all of the attention. I would rather see the primaries distributed throughout the calender giving more states a chance to meet the candidates. I find the current compressed schedule reducing the effectiveness of the process.|
Also, should some thought be given to the order of the states? Iowa now gets top priority even though it's a caucus and only a small percentage of the state participates. Is this a proper representation of things to come? Should this establish the the direction of the election? Can any state properly set the tone for the election?
We are all used to New Hampshire being the first primary. I'm a new Englander so I'm a bit biased here. I'm comfortable with New Hampshire being first. However, imagine if the order of the states were different or random each election season?
A two year election process is too long and the current primary calendar is detrimental to the process.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
In the wake of Super Tuesday, would you support a 50 state primary?
Today the Wall Street Journal posed the above question on its Question of the Day Forum. I assumed the author meant a one day national primary. Here's my posting: