Why is the presidential primary system still in use? - GoFuckYourself.com

Mutt · 01-08-2008, 09:28 AM

i'm sure that 100 years ago the primary system was practical or needed for some reason - can't remember my US politics courses - BUT today, it's a nutty way to nominate a presidential candidate - why should such a small number of people living in states people barely remember exist except once every 4 years be given such power to make or break a campaign before people in many other much bigger states every have their chance to have a say/vote?

a poor showing in these early caucuses/primaries can finish a campaign - that's not fair and it's not very democratic if you ask me.

xmas13 · 01-08-2008, 09:31 AM

Depends where you live, 'm sure in NH they don't mind.

WarChild · 01-08-2008, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

i'm sure that 100 years ago the primary system was practical or needed for some reason - can't remember my US politics courses - BUT today, it's a nutty way to nominate a presidential candidate - why should such a small number of people living in states people barely remember exist except once every 4 years be given such power to make or break a campaign before people in many other much bigger states every have their chance to have a say/vote?

a poor showing in these early caucuses/primaries can finish a campaign - that's not fair and it's not very democratic if you ask me.

Luckily, you don't live in a democracy, so non democratic processes are OK.

xmas13 · 01-08-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Luckily, you don't live in a democracy, so non democratic processes are OK.

Cyndalie · 01-08-2008, 09:34 AM

I'd rather not leave it completely up to the conventions.

Snake Doctor · 01-08-2008, 09:42 AM

Those in favor of the current system would argue that the early states take their role very seriously, and they are the most educated voters in the country.

Also, you don't need alot of money to win in the early states the way you would if it was a nationwide primary from the start. A literal nobody can shake enough hands in New Hampshire to make a name for themselves. I think that's important.

Snake Doctor · 01-08-2008, 09:42 AM

I, for one, am in favor of getting rid of the electoral college though.

Mutt · 01-08-2008, 09:47 AM

i like watching it, it's traditional and quaint to see candidates in small town America spending so much time interacting with people door to door, handshake by handshake - it would suck to lose that but what about the Democrats in states like California who will never get a chance to cast a vote or campaign for a back of the pack candidate they feel strongly about?

BradM · 01-08-2008, 10:21 AM

It's an outdated system that needs removing.

Snake Doctor · 01-08-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

i like watching it, it's traditional and quaint to see candidates in small town America spending so much time interacting with people door to door, handshake by handshake - it would suck to lose that but what about the Democrats in states like California who will never get a chance to cast a vote or campaign for a back of the pack candidate they feel strongly about?

The problem with that is if the first primaries are held in a state like California, then retail politics means nothing and money means everything.
You can't campaign door to door in California, it would be all about the media buy. That would make an already flawed system even worse IMO.

The reason Iowa and New Hampshire are important is because anybody can win there. By winning there a nobody governor or congressman can get national media attention that they wouldn't otherwise get.

Mutt · 01-08-2008, 11:27 AM

well it's lasted a couple of hundred years so i guess it won't be changing - but with technology true democracy is possible where people vote on anything of importance at one time - maybe one day people will demand that rather than just relying on their elected representatives.

theking · 01-08-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

well it's lasted a couple of hundred years so i guess it won't be changing - but with technology true democracy is possible where people vote on anything of importance at one time - maybe one day people will demand that rather than just relying on their elected representatives.

A true Democracy would be a fiasco of the worst kind. People do not and would never have the information...for a multitude of reasons... available to them to make educated choices. That is the primary reason there has never been a true Democracy but there are also other good reasons not to have a true Democracy.

01-08-2008, 09:28 AM	#1
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Why is the presidential primary system still in use? i'm sure that 100 years ago the primary system was practical or needed for some reason - can't remember my US politics courses - BUT today, it's a nutty way to nominate a presidential candidate - why should such a small number of people living in states people barely remember exist except once every 4 years be given such power to make or break a campaign before people in many other much bigger states every have their chance to have a say/vote? a poor showing in these early caucuses/primaries can finish a campaign - that's not fair and it's not very democratic if you ask me. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

01-08-2008, 09:31 AM	#2
xmas13 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: GFY Posts: 5,176	Depends where you live, 'm sure in NH they don't mind. __________________ ICQ 557504926

01-08-2008, 09:34 AM	#5
Cyndalie Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Cherry Hill, NJ Posts: 3,615	I'd rather not leave it completely up to the conventions. __________________ Cyndalie Marketing Director StoriesTraffic.com

01-08-2008, 09:42 AM	#6
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Those in favor of the current system would argue that the early states take their role very seriously, and they are the most educated voters in the country. Also, you don't need alot of money to win in the early states the way you would if it was a nationwide primary from the start. A literal nobody can shake enough hands in New Hampshire to make a name for themselves. I think that's important. __________________ sig too big

01-08-2008, 09:42 AM	#7
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	I, for one, am in favor of getting rid of the electoral college though. __________________ sig too big

01-08-2008, 09:47 AM	#8
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	i like watching it, it's traditional and quaint to see candidates in small town America spending so much time interacting with people door to door, handshake by handshake - it would suck to lose that but what about the Democrats in states like California who will never get a chance to cast a vote or campaign for a back of the pack candidate they feel strongly about? __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

01-08-2008, 10:21 AM	#9
BradM Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 1123,6536,5231 Posts: 3,397	It's an outdated system that needs removing.

01-08-2008, 11:27 AM	#11
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	well it's lasted a couple of hundred years so i guess it won't be changing - but with technology true democracy is possible where people vote on anything of importance at one time - maybe one day people will demand that rather than just relying on their elected representatives. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!