Shorten the primary process, and let every voter actually cast a meaningful vote.

[guillaumeb]

There is no reason for such a long process. Yes, the US media loves it, and they receive billions in revenue, but there is no logical reason that the US primary process could not be shortened to a 6 week process.

That way, with 6 separate, multiple state voting days, every voter would feel that their vote actually counted.

Instead, we have clusters of candidates crowding restaurants and diners in Iowa and New Hampshire, all competing for the few thousands of voters in these small, white, mainly rural states.

[TwilightZone]

1. Now all you need to do is convince 50+ states and territories to go along with it.

Have at it.

"That way, with 6 separate, multiple state voting days, every voter would feel that their vote actually counted. "

No, the nomination process would likely be over most cycles well before the sixth week.

We'd be at roughly week 3 in your scenario, and it's clearly over. Same problem we have now, just condensed.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Would have to agree.

The only way to do it with even the last voters thinking their vote counted would be to keep the results of the primaries secret until the last set of primaries.

[TwilightZone]

4. Or have them all the same day.

Which would make CA, NY, TX and a few others kingmakers and the rest would be ignored.

On the bright side, it would blunt the importance of IA and NH....

[LiberalFighter]

6. But as you indicated... get all 50 states and territories to buy in

[TwilightZone]

8. Yep.

NH even has a state law requiring that it be before "similar contests". The only reason it's not before Iowa is because Iowa's a caucus.

[guillaumeb]

15. The voters would decide.

And if, as some argue, Iowa and New Hampshire are representative of the country, it would not matter.

[TwilightZone]

21. No, the voters wouldn't decide. The voters in a few states would.

Money would be dumped in the states with the most delegates and the rest would be ignored.

[guillaumeb]

24. As opposed to ignoring all of the states that vote after Super Tuesday?

We disagree.

[TwilightZone]

33. Same thing.

Ignoring three weeks out of six in your scenario is exactly the same thing.

Why you continue to insist otherwise is beyond my understanding. You are proposing exactly what we already do. I can only guess that you're being intentionally obtuse, like your knowingly false claim that Hillary Clinton didn't drop out before the convention in 2008.

[guillaumeb]

14. Not if the process balances the voters to allow for more participation, and earlier.

And the process would last at least 5 weeks in my view. As it is, a fraction of the voters decides for everyone.

[PJMcK]

3. I agree there's a problem with our system

Consider that the presidential campaign usually now begins the day after inauguration. It's ridiculous and it detracts significantly from the goal of governing.

Trump has been on the campaign trail since his inauguration. So have many of the Democrats.

I posted some thoughts along those lines the other day:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287653097

If our democratic republic survives, we have a lot of fixing' to do.

[guillaumeb]

16. I just recommended your excellent post.

The process needs to be amended.

[PJMcK]

23. Well, thank you

I really don't know if my idea could work. Nonetheless, I think that on this issue, you and I are in agreement.

Gonna listen to Trump tonight?

[guillaumeb]

26. No. I would rather listen to a chainsaw running.

[ProfessorPlum]

5. The other problem is that if everyone got to vote,

the voters might expect to have their choice honored.

Instead, the process is a way for the party leaders to put their fingers in the wind and then start deciding who needs to get the spoils for the candidate they have picked out.

At least, it certainly seems that way this year.

[TwilightZone]

9. Or maybe voters voted.

Huh, what a concept.

[guillaumeb]

17. I disagree, in part.

Yes, voters can, and might, listen to other politicians, but a very short process would mean that candidates would address the entirety of the country, rural as well as urban.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Strongly disagree - rule by emotion cripples judgment

Candidates need to be tested over time to see how they respond to issues, debates, public opinion, and current emerging events. All you get with a short primary is a rush to judgment and decision by a snapshot of emotion. I even think this year's primary season is far too short.

A short quick primary judgment brought the GOP Donald Trump in 2016. Trump just mowed them down in quick debates and picked off each one with a nasty name and put down. Carly, Ted, Jeb. They weren't tested because there wasn't time, and Trump wasn't tested because no one, including the media, pushed back.

Elections aren't a game show to be over in 30 minutes. They are are a measure of character, competence, reasoning, and personality. A quick courtship doesn't make a sound marriage any more than a shotgun wedding. Elections are no different.

[guillaumeb]

18. Most countries have a much shorter process.

And the GOP process in 2016 certainly refutes your premise.

6 weeks is sufficient time to allow for debates.

[customerserviceguy]

10. If that were the case

the winner would be whoever has the greatest name recognition. You'd never have a Pete Buttigieg putting his intellect on display, you can kiss the Amy Klobuchars of the nation goodbye.

The current system is far from perfect, but with over four decades of use, there are strategies for a relative unknown candidate to work with it and have a fair shot at the brass ring.

[brooklynite]

11. For the millionth time...NO

A short campaign season and large regional primaries will give a huge advantage to well known candidates with the ability to raise large amounts of money, and will limit the ability to see candidates except on TV.

[guillaumeb]

19. This process effectively disenfranchises millions of voters.

And it must be changed.

[Codeine]

20. You're not "enfranchised" to begin with

when it comes to primary elections.

[guillaumeb]

25. All who vote can be.

As it is now, voters in Iowa have far more voice than their millions of neighbors in Illinois and all of the other states that vote after Super Tuesday.

[TwilightZone]

22. Your solution doesn't solve the problem.

It has the same flaws as the current system, just condensed into six weeks.

[Demguy81]

12. Would never fly

But I would prefer a national primary on one day, top 2 advance to a runoff the next week if no one goes above 50.

[mcar]

13. I agree with this 100%

[Blues Heron]

27. One country , one voting day.

we're not electing governors here, its the president of the country. We need more equality here.

[stopbush]

29. We're not electing anyone in the primaries.

[Blues Heron]

32. oh i thought we were. lol are u for real?

[stopbush]

34. You don't understand political parties or the primary process.

All you are doing when you vote in a primary is to express your preference for a candidate. The political parties set the rules for how they pick their candidates (see California v Jones). It’s entirely within their power and their rights to reject the preferences of primary voters and select their own candidate. Hubert Humphrey didn’t run in a single primary but he was elected as the nominee for POTUS on the Dem ticket at the 1968 convention, even though 80% of the primary votes went to anti-war candidates.

[guillaumeb]

30. That would also work.

And no state would have more advantage simply by having the earliest primary.

[stopbush]

28. Nope. That would make things worse.

For example, if Sanders had won a few states and kept pace with Biden, a longer primary season would give the candidates time to fight it out.

But Sanders isn’t winning votes. So, moot point.

[guillaumeb]

31. It would accelerate the process.

Any candidate would still need a majority of the delegates.

[Demsrule86]

35. Oh so now we need to change everything for Sanders...wont happen. Elections are state

matters.

[guillaumeb]

37. No, we need to do it so every voter can vote, instead of many voters this year having

no chance to vote for their preferred candidate.

[Yavin4]

36. Two rounds of primary voting.

First round, 4 regional primaries, East, West, North, and South. Candidates can only enter one region. Month long voting in each region. Top two finishers in each region go on to the national primary.

Three months of national campaigns and debates. Finally, one national primary with month long voting. Top finisher gets the nomination. In case of ties, then it goes to the convention. Delegates and Super Delegates decide.

[guillaumeb]

38. That is an interesting suggestion.

The revenue hungry media would not like it, but it would allow every voter to feel that they had a voice in the process.

[marlakay]

39. How about 3 weeks of voting

Week one all the states with the lowest delegates
Week two all the states with the mid range delegates
Week three all the states with highest amount

That way all the money won’t go to the highest and it might even last all three weeks.

[guillaumeb]

40. That might work as well.

And candidates would have no reason to drop out.