Is my primary vote worthless?

[hoshie]

2004 is the second time I voted in a pre-general election. Since i'm not in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, does this mean my primary vote is worthless?

All of this focus on these three states is getting on my nerves!

[Gustaf]

2004 is the second time I voted in a pre-general election. Since i'm not in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, does this mean my primary vote is worthless?

All of this focus on these three states is getting on my nerves!

It's not completely worthless, you can cause an upset if you like, the thing is you never do!

[© tweed]

Virginia votes pretty early.

[Gustaf]

Virginia votes pretty early.

Nothing after Iowa and New Hampshire can be considered early!

[© tweed]

Virginia votes pretty early.

Nothing after Iowa and New Hampshire can be considered early!

New Jersey votes in June.

[Gustaf]

Virginia votes pretty early.

Nothing after Iowa and New Hampshire can be considered early!

New Jersey votes in June.

Well, that could be considered really, really late, Virginia is just late.

[© tweed]

I don't live in a swing state, although NY was a swing in 1988, when I not-so-proudly voted for Gov Dukakis.

[ijohn57s]

Personally, I think that all states should have their primaries on the same day. That way everyone gets a say.

Besides, I would give the excitement of election night twice in the election year.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Part of the reason that we'vefallen into the current primary system and stayed there is taht it helps to keep costs down by having a few early states sort out the field.  Iowa, NH, and SC provide a valuable service in taht regard., one might argue about the exact process or whether they ought to use different states, but Having a national primary or an early contest in any state with 10+ EV's isn't going to happen.

[King]

Part of the reason that we'vefallen into the current primary system and stayed there is taht it helps to keep costs down by having a few early states sort out the field.  Iowa, NH, and SC provide a valuable service in taht regard., one might argue about the exact process or whether they ought to use different states, but Having a national primary or an early contest in any state with 10+ EV's isn't going to happen.

Wasn't South Carolina only important because it was John Edwards last stand? There are 6 other states that voted with it on that day, Missouri even had more delegates than it.

[King]

Personally, I think that all states should have their primaries on the same day. That way everyone gets a say.

Besides, I would give the excitement of election night twice in the election year.

Oh god no, then Kerry would win Iowa and Dean would win everything else *DIE DEAN*. Remember Iowa was what put the Kerry campaign on its feet.

[ijohn57s]

Personally, I think that all states should have their primaries on the same day. That way everyone gets a say.

Besides, I would give the excitement of election night twice in the election year.

Oh god no, then Kerry would win Iowa and Dean would win everything else *DIE DEAN*. Remember Iowa was what put the Kerry campaign on its feet.

Does that scare you?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wasn't South Carolina only important because it was John Edwards last stand? There are 6 other states that voted with it on that day, Missouri even had more delegates than it.

South carolina wasn't as important because other states moved their primary dates, but SC did retain its first southern primary distinction.

[Akno21]

Wasn't South Carolina only important because it was John Edwards last stand? There are 6 other states that voted with it on that day, Missouri even had more delegates than it.

South carolina wasn't as important because other states moved their primary dates, but SC did retain its first southern primary distinction.

South Carolina was immensly important in 2000, swung momentum to Bush. I think all primaries should be on the same day, maybe March 2, and the winner of the state gets that states EV's, and the candidate with the most EV's would win. Or you could split it up over 5 days. but not so spread out as it is now.

[PBrunsel]

I'm glad Iowa (a usualy ignored state) gets spotlight in Election years.

[W in 2004]

2004 is the second time I voted in a pre-general election. Since i'm not in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, does this mean my primary vote is worthless?

All of this focus on these three states is getting on my nerves!

Even if your state’s primary comes after your party’s presidential candidate has been decided, it is still important to vote in the primary because it will influence the selection of other candidates.  I voted in the 2004 Republican primary even though the presidential candidate was already decided upon.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually that depends on the staet you live in.  For example, SC has separate primaries for the Presidential candiates and the rest of the ballot. Thus they year I got to vote in both a Democratic primary and a Republican one.

[The Dowager Mod]

Mine was worthless since i voted for al sharptons 'do

[ATFFL]

Mine was worthless since i voted for al sharptons 'do

Best. Song. Evar.

"Gonna get me an Al Sharpton Haircut"

[Nation]

Damn right every priamry (or at least super tuesday states) should all be early on and on the same day -- the way we have it set up now, Iowa and New Hampshire essentially pick the president, and if that doesn't work out, a few southern states will decide.

Very bad system -- as somoene else said, Dean would have been our nominee (thank God) rather than Kerry, if we had a system like this.

[bergie72]

I'd rather see it Primarys spread out over 5 or 6 weeks instead of 6 months (Jan to June).  Still keep a few leading states (NH, IA, whomever) to weed out the poor performers, but then have the rest of the country do Super Tuesdays over the next month, month and a half.

I know it's very simple and easy to understand, so the major parties will never go for it, but I can still hope.   :-)