Comment of the morning:
“Why don't we eliminate primaries and just have presidential elections every 3 days. One day to campaign, one day to vote, and one day complain about why the person we just elected sucks. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.” - try2evolve
Although the state may receive limited delegate seating at the GOP Convention, Florida is now expected to hold its presidential primary on the last day in January 2012, a move likely to throw the carefully arranged Republican nominating calendar into disarray and jumpstart the nominating process a month earlier than party leaders had hoped.
The expected change had CNN.com readers debating how the U.S. presidential primaries should be run.
GetRealDudes said, “It's time for a change in the primary process. There should be a round robin assignment for all states so that no one or two states are always at the start of the campaign season. Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence on every presidential campaign.”
sunpacific responded, “This is the most sane thing I have heard. But in our ‘me first’ culture, this will be readily rejected.”
wyckette said, “We should follow the UK and have a one month campaign calendar and then a vote. The money being spent on campaigning is embarrassing. Voter fatigue is rampant just before the elections. And none of this puts the right people in office as we are experiencing now. Let's put the money to work for people who need jobs and take a chance that even in a shortened campaign season, we can elect some good (better) people to govern us.”
Mentalfloss responded, “I couldn't say that better myself. The problem is most of the US population is stupid and bad things never change. 200+ million people and everyone votes red or blue, we should have 3, 5 or even more viable parties. Instead we have a polarized country, everyone is red or blue with no compromise.”
atpmsd said, “States hold primaries early in an attempt to exert influence over who will be our next President; this gives them too much power. All primaries should be held on the same date.”
gremlinus responded, “And it skews the results. Someone who wouldn't have done well in one region does better because everyone loves a winner. And you run the risk of nominating a weaker candidate. If you want to know if they can carry the country, run it like the actual Presidential election.”
bulligan79 said, “Why can't they just have a one day primary held simultaneously in every state? That is the only way that every state can be relevant in this process.”
unknown11 responded, “Because it costs too much money for all of these candidates to campaign in every state. The parties like it spread out so that they can weed out some of the also-rans from the field, and narrow where the money goes before things really get turned up. It would also limit the number of people who can run. Lots of people can raise the money to compete in four small states and see how they do before they have to move on and buy really expensive TV time in big states. If they do well in the 4 small states, the money will then start to flow in.”
jledbettrnv2 said, “Florida can move their primary all they want. It won't matter. None of the GOP candidates would be good for this country as President."
mogran responded, “Baloney, they can't be any worse than Obama and his administration...biggest spenders in history...any GOP would be far, far better!”
Jstic said, “It doesn't matter when Florida holds it's primaries, they will find a way to mess it up, they always do. The State of Florida is directly responsible for the election of George W. Bush and eight years or driving our great country into a ditch. It will literally take decades to recover from the damage done by Bush/Cheney. Had Al Gore been elected, things would have been much different.”
elem187 responded, “Clinton wouldn't have won both his elections if it wasn't for Florida... but keep on living in your little bubble, its so much easier to deal with than reality.”
Do you feel your views align with these commenters' thoughts? Post a comment below or sound off on video
Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
@ Joe - I hear ya! I will continue to rant and rave about the axis of evil - Bush, Cheney, Rove - and the illegitimate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - that were and are ONLY FOR OIL!!! I protested before we invaded Iraq, was spit on, called names, etc. I marched with a sign saying there were NO WMD's and faced terrible hostility from the sheep who believed what Bush et. al. were telling them. Now...all these years later, all these thousands of young men and women dead, many more wounded irrevocably...and trillions of dollars wasted.....the TRUTHS ARE IN THE LIGHT! nO WMD's - NO hope for the mess we've created in Afghanistan - No reason to go there in the first place because the CIA KNEW Bin Laden was in Pakistan - no way out of Iraq...... Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. SHOULD BE ON TRIAL IN THE HAGUE FOR WAR CRIMES - NO EXCUSES!!!
I didn't get my oil. Where do we pick it up?
Voters are getting tired of the election process anyway. I agree with GetRealDudes and let's just have one primary election day nationwide. It will save the candidates a lot of money and shorten the campaign process. The primary elections have low voter turnout anyway.
Why do we even have primaries...at taxpayer expense, no less. Primary elections to select candidate should be funded by the respective parties, or we should do away with them entirely and let each party submit their best candidate on election day.
I don't think any of them take fed. money! If you take fed money you more rules on discloser on other campaign funds!
I didn't know America being ignorant was news.
One thing not mentioned above is open primaries. If we want sane, electable candidates we need to open up the primaries so everyone no matter political belief can pick the best candidate for everyone. Afterall the one we pick will be leading all of us.
Still waiting with baited breath for the big one to come and wash Florida into the Atlantic.
It don't matter what they move it to. It will take them a month to figure out their machines counted wrong and hand count everything. Not like we have anyone to vote for this year or last year. Haven't had a decent candidate in I could tell you how long. Being a republican I can tell you they haven't shown us anyone worth voting for, but sure don't want the same one in office now. Give him 4 more years and I will have to work till I am 110 and he will put us 10 trillion more in debt.
Bozo!
Why do we need primaries at all? Why can't all of them run for President and let us have muliple choices? Why shouldn't Hillary be able to run against Obama for President and not just for the primary? We need multiple choices to keep them in line with the American public, not their parties. If they were all on the ballot and their votes were split they'd have to be more forthcoming about what THEY would do to differentiate themselves from their parties.
I think we should run the primaries-caucuses the same way as we do the election. That is, NO ONE KNOWS WHO IS WINNING UNTIL THE POLLS CLOSE. This means the totals are not revealed until the last primary-caucus' polls close.
Another thing, All polls are popular votes. This doesn't mean a thing. For example, if all GOP votes from California when for candidate 'A' and candidate 'B' received an equal number of Ohio votes, then the polls would show they were even. But, if putting someone in the general election who you want to win, the GOP should put candidate 'B' since the GOP will not win California but has a chance in Ohio. You win by winning the "battleground" states. This is why all the campaigning is only in those states after the primaries-caucuses.
Not nearly as bad as the Democrat lineup last go round. That was truly a debacle that left us with one of the worst Presidents in US history.
No Bush was a Republican.
@sashatree; can't have a war for oil when we're not getting any oil from there. And no it's not evil stopping the genocide that was occurring in Iraq if anything it was evil for the rest of the world community to turn a blind eye to it.
I want to work longer for less money and no healthcare. I want rich people who I will never meet to have lots more money. I want to have to work for more years until I can retire and I want a smaller pension than I would get now. That´s why I´m voting republican in 2012!
The stain on the UN not joining in overthrowing Hussein and stopping the genocide in Iraq is a stain that will not be washed away anytime soon.
For those saying Obama has spent more money than any other president, you may want to look over Bush's tenure. He oversaw the largest expansion of the government and spent more on his wars than Obama could ever dream of.
The primaries definitely need to be pushed back, not moved forward. The last ones should end a month before the general election and the primaries themselves should only last a month or two. I realize this may mean some votes wound not be held on Tuesdays, but I think the country can handle this turn of events. The fact that presidential campaigning begins two years before the election is a disgusting distraction, and waste of time and money.
Iowa and New Hampshire need less influence on the primaries. Their combined population is less than 4.5 million, and mostly rural. That's hardly an accurate representation of the whole country's beliefs, desires, etc.
Remember Hillary Clinton had huge wins in Florida and MIchigan, but the party boss said no to millions of voters in those two important states. This primary process needs major overhaul. Personally I would make Florida and Michigan go first this time around because they didn't have a say in 2008, I know those were for democratic primaries but still many of their citizens got disenfranchised.
We need a lottery system to determine who go first or not. And a regional primary system makes a lot of sense. Iowa, New Hampshire need to take a back seat now.