Should Presidential Primaries be left to the parties?

[MaC]

I say definitely.  The party knows how to pick good choices better than individuals that just gain popularity, but may be horrible at debating their opponents and getting votes.

[jerusalemcar5]

No, but the system should be fairer.  All primaries should occur on the same day.

[MODU]

I think there should be open primaries.  That way people like me aren't forced to choose either Republican or Democrat when I go to the polls to participate.

[John Dibble]

I've got no preference - I think it should be up to the parties themselves to decide how their primary system is run and whether they should be open or not.

No, but the system should be fairer.  All primaries should occur on the same day.

Or at least have the results released on the same day - either way we need it so two states don't decide who the viable candidate is for everyone else like in 2004.

[MasterJedi]

No, but all primaries should be on the same day.

[nini2287]

If primaries are publicly funded-no

If they aren't publicly funded-yes

[Boris]

No, but the system should be fairer.  All primaries should occur on the same day.

I still say that this method would be awful; no candidate would gain a majority of delegates and the nominee would be decided at the convention. So instead of using the convention time to showcase a candidate, the party to go from ballot to ballot until the last man remains standing. When this happens, things can get ugly (1968).

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina deciding who the next President should be, but from a political perspective, it's preferable that way.

[jerusalemcar5]

No, but the system should be fairer.  All primaries should occur on the same day.

I still say that this method would be awful; no candidate would gain a majority of delegates and the nominee would be decided at the convention. So instead of using the convention time to showcase a candidate, the party to go from ballot to ballot until the last man remains standing. When this happens, things can get ugly (1968).

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina deciding who the next President should be, but from a political perspective, it's preferable that way.

I disagree.  An interesting convention would be much better.  There should be a long hard debate at the convention where the party can really decide who would be the best.  Party unity isn't necessary until after a candidate is nominated.

[Nym90]

No, all primaries should be open and on the same day nationally. If no candidate has a majority of the delegates, a runoff could be held a month later.

[MaC]

you all bring up good points-not totally sure on what I think about this other than the parties shouldn't be taking taxpayer money to fund their conventions.

[NewFederalist]

parties shouldn't be taking taxpayer money to fund their conventions.

...or their primaries unless they are open to all registered voters.

[angus]

yes.  primaries are an internal matter for parties to sort out.  I avoid them.  As much as I hate the concept of political parties, I think it's creepy and a violation of the free association clause of the Bill of Rights for the government to outlaw Democrats and Republicans.  So they should be left up to anyone willing to associate with them and not up to the government.  Similarly, anyone who wants to be on the ballot should be allowed on the ballot.  Of course the federal government leaves ballot rules up to the states, as it should, but as tedious as it seems, I'd rather have 300 million names to choose from than have only Bush and Gore to choose from.

[Dr. Cynic]

I don't believe it should be left up to the party, but I believe that the primaries should not focus on the inky-dinky states so much, and ignore the more populated ones, completely. I think the primaries should be conducted much like a Presidential campaign, and the primaries should all be held on the same day.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No.