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.

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

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

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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

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.

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

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?

It's an outdated system that needs removing.

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.

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.