Overheard on CNN.com: Presidential primaries needs overhaul
GOP candidates may be facing a more hectic nomintating process if Florida moves their primary date to January 31.
September 28th, 2011
12:34 PM ET

Overheard on CNN.com: Presidential primaries needs overhaul

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

Florida may move primary date

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.

soundoff (39 Responses)
  1. Ryno

    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.

    September 28, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Report abuse |
  2. James99

    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.

    September 28, 2011 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3