deliriumipa
sirnick
YaBB God
![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif) ![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif) ![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif) ![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif) ![*](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/star.gif)
Posts: 4,677
Political Matrix E: -1.94, S: -6.61
|
![](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/IMG/post/xx.gif) |
« on: February 13, 2010, 11:28:21 AM » |
|
There only plan thats really going to work well, is a plan that the Democrats and Republicans both agree on.
We need regional voting so candidates aren't flying across the nation from day to day. Whats also expensive is well, primaries in general, but having two separate primaries on separate days for Republicans and Democrats.
The first two or three states should be random and not included in the regional voting "in bloc". From there the order of which region votes should be randomized.
Theres an argument to be made if less primaries is better, only having 16-20 primaries (The Miller Center Plan mentions all of these points) --the rest of the states having free voting party delegates which would strengthen parties.
Also, a reapportionment has to be made of delegates since small states are overly represented in both Republican and Democratic primaries.
Right now the primary season is too long and starts too early. Pushing it up to March, while making the season run into June at the latest, might increase voter turnout due to the warmer weather and a shorter primary season will keep peripheral voters interested longer.
The Ohio Plan has California and Mass in the same color, so I'm guessing they're on the same day. Thats a pain in the ass for candidates if either state is competitive.
|