This is based on 43 states being considered “non-negotiable” and “set in stone” while only 7 are considered “swing” states
Also consider I specified “voters”, who are at best only 2/3 of the total population, which leaves out about 100 million extra people
It’s fucking ludicrous to not have all of the primaries on the same date
And then you have the “caucuses.” Secret ballots? Naa. How about you go personally stand in a specific corner of a public school gymnasium in front of news cameras (and make it a several hour ordeal instead of punching a box and leaving).
Then have a BS verbal vote where your boos against Buttigieg actually end up counting as support for him
Then the BS coinflip to decide support.
Which is then cheated
“I was saying Boo-ttigieg”
I first saw footage of that on tv when I was a boy in the late 1970s. I couldn’t believe it. I don’t remember if I had seen SNL by then or not. But the thing in the gym certainly seemed like something from a comedy sketch and not something that was real that sane adults actually did.
I actually disagree with this. The way it is now is stupid ya but having the primaries be staggered could give the chance for otherwise unknown candidates to gain traction. Since a national campaign is hard to pull off for a small candidate but if they can focus in on 1 state they can actually make an impact and then get national attention by doing well in that single state.
Now in saying that i dont actually think liberal democracies are a good thing. I prefer a model like China has where you have elections in sequential levels with the lower level reps electing the higher level reps. It allows a more close connection to the people representing you and keeps elections small so that small candidates can make their case easily. And prevents sensationalization the way american elections are. I would combine a system like this with the ability to enact direct democratic actions via ballot measures on specific issues that people are really invested in.
The same outcome could be achieved by holding a run-off election in the case were nobody wins 50% outright.
Nah cuz its still just too big and too fast. Small candidates need like time to build up momentum to get off the ground. And they cant break thru and get traction in a huge national election at all cuz they dont have the funds to buy ad space and stuff nationally yet. Limiting it to a small area makes it a lot cheaper to compete.
Okay that’s a good point actually. Maybe they should just be in order of population from smallest to biggest? That way anyone could win until pretty late in the thing and every state might actually matter
I think that still runs into the problem of the first state being like really conservative. I think if ur looking to like change the system as little as possible and improve the primary a bit maybe you could find like a low population state that also leans heavily in your favor typically in the general and start there? That way its a small test run election with your actual base. Or maybe do like city primaries? Like NYC, LA, etc have their own primary elections, party sponsored events where all the candidates get to speak, and then broadcast them nationally. Then do a big national primary a few weeks or months later?
But tbh i think the main issue is that the primaries atleast for the dems are generally just rigged anyway. Youve got like super delegates, and back door deals to stop any left leaning candidates.
deleted by creator
Campaign finance reform is never going to happen in America why would the rich give up their legalized corruption? You wont get that til theres an actual revolution.
Every state Democratic party should be pursue their own national political interest and move their primary date up to be tied with the first. Its absurd that you’d just let your states political interest be moot.