The first Dem primary should be in San Francisco. Then there should be a long gap before the next one in Madison, Wisconsin. Then there should be another long gap before the third primary in Seattle. After that, all the rest of the primaries should be on the same day.

That way we'll get a real nominee instead of someone who's willing to whore himself out to get elected.

We need to scrap the system of separate state primareis. Whichever state votes first will have a disproportionate impact on selecting the nominee (Kerry winning Iowa is a prime example). Under the current system, people in other states know nothing about the candidates since they haven't seen them and so they just vote for whoever they heard won earlier. Instead, we should have a nation wide primary on one day. If someone gets over 50 percent of the vote, they become the nominee. If nobody gets over 50 percent, you have a runoff, and then the winner becomes the nominee. That's the only way to make things fair and stop one state from disproportionately influencing the outcome. In order to prevent money from having too big an impact, we should have required public funding and caps on spending.

"That's the only way to make things fair and stop one state from disproportionately influencing the outcome."

Sure, you've stopped a single state from being a filter, but you've also guaranteed that name recognition alone will matter. Meaning Ahnold would get nominated over someone like Howard Dean.

These people have to meet the public somewhere on the road to becoming completely isolated in the White House. Once you give that up, you give up our democracy. No outsider will ever stand a chance, and the people most likely to be elected will be Fox News TV hosts.

Ahhnold couldn't get the GOP nomination because he's not conservative enough. Name recognition gives you a bit of a head start, but as Lieberman can attest to, it is not enough. If you don't have a national primary, you are disenfranchising voters in other states who have primaries on later dates. The parties could sponser debates to let people see their candidates.

You rocket scientists are aware, aren't you, that Arnold Schwarzenegger is Constitutionally prohibited from running for President?

I mean, I don't want to cast any aspersions on the intelligence of the Democratic base here, but come on!

Arnold was born in a foreign country? That's news to me. I thought he had just gotten hit over the head with a baseball bat when he was young. The point, genius, was about name recognition.

For example, Jeb would have a head start in the Republican primary because of name recongition. I think name recognition advantages would be reduced as the campaign went on.

Sure, you've stopped a single state from being a filter, but you've also guaranteed that name recognition alone will matter. Meaning Ahnold would get nominated over someone like Howard Dean.

That's a complete and utter fiction. You cannot explain the success of Dean For America in 2003, with your thesis. Just face it, the paradigm has shifted; the mold broken. The 'net makes a national primary plausible.

If Jeb runs the cult will flock to his standard and the GOP race will be over before it begins. 'Nuff said.

The Republicans have always had an establishment pack mentality. However, the rise of Dean does indicate that message can trump name recognition. If Hillary continues to be a fake Democrat, she can expect that kind of thing to happen to her. In fact, that is what I fully expect to happen if she runs.

Yes, the states used for selective voting should be changed. Iowa and New Hampshire are two very nice but small states, which do not reflect the majority of the country's views. Tri-state regional primaries best? Maybe, somehow even open it up to Independents vote (or substantial polled vote regarding).

________________
Really would like to see some smart group working on changing the Electoral College to proportional.

Boy the Clintons are sure showing their true colors. It seems they are extremely good at knowing which way the wind blows (and who controls the vote tabulation software)

Apparently, if you can't beat them, join them is the stategy of the day.

A national primary would be just as futile as the current system for a fair or relatively supported nomination from within either party. Firstly, the internet would not be a just source for a fair national primary, because too many individuals do not have access to the internet-some do not have the ability to use a computer, let alone the internet, and some do not even have library cards to take advantage of the internet provided there (or like myself have too hefty of a fine to pay when compared to my income).

As for the name recognition, which is a more plausible result of a national primary, that would support bushsucks and bama's idea that the nomination would be based on one's past record and popularity rather than the true reasons that should support a nomination. So I would have to agree with bushsucks, again, that to have fair primaries the parties would have to allot time and effort to debates prior to the state primaries.

However, I do support the opening of primaries to parties beyond the Democrats and Republicans, because there is so much left unaddressed by those two parties, plus the issue that by placing the political ideologies of the majority of such a diverse country into two domineering groups that you leave little room for fair representation.

so fuck bush and the current government.

You rocket scientists are aware, aren't you, that Arnold Schwarzenegger is Constitutionally prohibited from running for President?

And I didn't think neo-cons knew anything about the Constitution except that it made good ass-wipe.