It's pretty damned unfair, but I really think the way to make California (and the other large states) count in the primaries, is by having primaries for ALL the large and middlin' large states (say, all those with 12 or more electoral votes), and maybe a few middlin' ones as well, on the last day of the primary season.

You'd effectively have a series of small-to-medium state primaries and caucuses that would establish a frontrunner and eliminate some peripheral candidates, but wouldn't actually decide the matter until the last day of the primary season, which would effectively be a national primary, at a time when we would have learned enough about the candidates from the earlier primaries to make an intelligent decision.

That's my suggestion, and I'm sticking with it.

Being a California native (and also an Orange County resident), I couldn't agree more with Kevin.

Meaningless is an understatement.

"[NH voters]frequently they ignore the Iowa results."

so in what way are they "stuck" with Iowa or any other state which might get to vote ahead of them?

ok, i realize it's pointless to argue with Broder, even by proxy, but sometimes i can't help myself.

Give them a break Kevin. If not for the primary, there would be no reason to visit, much less mention the state of Iowa at all.

There are plenty of states full of pasty white people with names that don't make it sound like you're trying to swallow a Blowfish.

I grew up in California and have voted here since 1976. In my entire life, I haven't once cast a primary vote for president that wasn't completely meaningless. How about writing a column on the unfairness of that?

And why should Americans care who left coasters like yourself want as President? The most important people in the America to listen to are those who live in the heartland of America, not those who are part of the left coast or east coast elite. We should listen to people who live in Kansas, New Hampshire, and Alabama, not liberals who in New York or California.

y'kno, RT, i kinda like that suggestion.

Al{ish} sorry, hon, but New Hampsire has an East coast, too.

{i found that out just two weeks ago ;-}

And why should Americans care who left coasters like yourself want as President?

Because Reagan would not have been President had he been the Governor of Wisconsin. (Hint: more pasty white people, and cheese!)

RT's suggestion is brilliant. As a New Yorker, my primary vote never makes the slightest difference, either, the way things are set up, and that makes no sense at all.

Because Reagan would not have been President had he been the Governor of Wisconsin. (Hint: more pasty white people, and cheese!)

You say that (Reagan wouldn't have been President) like it's a BAD thing.

Hint: Demographically Wisconsin is the most average state in the nation.

(Hint: Not as many white people as the assholes think; which is why their candidates lose. Hint, Wisconsin has been voting as blue as any state in the nation, bluer than California. Hint, Madison and Milwaukee are in Wisconsin.)

Moron.

I agree wholeheartedly with Kevin. What Broder and the rest of 'em are all about is ritual and fear of change. What would they do if they didn't get to feel the snow crunching underfoot whilst mouthing meaningless crap about democracy in action?

RT has a great suggestion. The primaries are BS under the current system. Make 'em meaningful.

What is it about our political system that allows someone who gets about 5K votes—or whatever it is—to become the putative frontrunner in a contest to be chief executive of a nation of 300 million people? Broder, et al, are in favor of the sure and safe, Washington establishment-blessed candidates. In that, they are ultimately undemocratic.

We should listen to people who live in Kansas, New Hampshire, and Alabama, not liberals who in New York or California.

Indeed, for ours is a government of the midwestern people, by the midwestern people, and for the midwestern people. The presence of a shore invalidates a state's right to a voice in the federal government.

(I want to believe that Al's comment was a joke, but I've learned that no opinion is implausible on the internet.)

Hell, we Hawai'i people have even less influence than Kevin's California does. The distinction is that when Ca. grumbles the pols have to pretend to listen.

Give them a break Kevin. If not for the primary, there would be no reason to visit, much less mention the state of Iowa at all.

There are plenty of states full of pasty white people with names that don't make it sound like you're trying to swallow a Blowfish.

Apparently haven't been to Iowa, either. Or didn't understand what you saw.

Ever been to a packing plant?

What you know isn't the problem, it's what you know that just ain't so.

For someone who has at least 376 people trying to drive him insane, you seem to be holding up remarkably well.

Broder is one of the most prominent among many fine arguments -- lots of them at WaPo, including Krauthammer, Cohen, and Raspberry before he left -- in favor of term limits for pundits.

Another point: Broder huffs and puffs about how seriously New Hampshire residents take democracy, and for that they should be commended. But isn't it feasible that, if other states were allowed a proportionate role in the primaries, their residents would take democracy more seriously, and that would be a good thing? Or is this just part of the New Hampshire character that other Americans can't hope to emulate?

Lettuce: I got the hint.

I agree with Kevin. Broder's column is silly.

The ugly and bloated sense of entitlement Californians and NYers have is why the rest of us make sure your votes don't count.

Please, folks, get over yourselves.

Kevin - what the h@@@ is wrong with you?

For your own sake - get a grip, man.

Al, you dingbat: New Hampshire is not in the heartland. It is on the East Coast. It fronts the Atlantic Ocean. Get out your globe and get a grip.

States need to be a curiousity (like slavery) of the past. Once states cease to be, this sort of silliness goes away. Counties, municipalities, and the federal government are all we need.

Broder and the other champions of the status quo like the idea of New Hampshire having a disproportionate influence on who we choose as President. It's a small, mostly rural state full of conservative white people. Same with Iowa.

California's presidentiating primarality situation is not unfair because it is on the Left Coast, it not the nexus of Right thinkking Righ People or Beltway pundits, it is the birthplace of dirty hippies, and it is evil and degenerate. Next question.

I think the party should demand that a different state lead the primary order every year, and that the number of primaries be reduced to a simple number, like five.

And give enough time for the candidates to visit each state.

I grew up knowing that the presidential candidates would never even visit my home states of Oregon and Washington, let alone Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, Monstana... Etc. These states all have populations as large or larger than New Hampshire.

Let some other state get the attention for once.

I think they should go to the state where they have to appeal to the broadest groups of people - i.e. not promise farm subsidies that every economist knows are stupid and hurt our foreign policy by punishing poor countries. I don't know where that is, but even as a Californian, California might be a bit much.

New Hampshire is so "retail" that both its Senators are sons of former governors.

How about Prop 86? Waah, money goes to pay for hospitals and obesity! How dare they treat secondary effects of tobacco smoke with taxes on tobacco!

Or Prop 87? Waaah! They'll import more oil instead of pumping it here even though every other source of oil also charges for it to be pumped from the ground!

Sheesh. Like Californians care if someone pulls oil out of the ground elsewhere - if you had a vote, they wouldn't be able to do it at all. Oil production is not terribly popular here, because of spills, damage to the environment, and we don't even get cheaper gas because of it.

I miss Calpundit.

Why don't the Democrats just cut the pretense and hold the first primary in France?

History makes it sickeningly clear that the nominee will be determined prior to the first primary. Whoever has raised the most money wins, which means the first (and only) real primary is fundraising.

State primaries provide an illusion of democracy to the foregone conclusion. Money will buy the Democratic and Republican presidential candidacies, again.

Let's fix things.

Let's amend the Constitution to abolish the electoral college -- a Californian's vote is just as meaningless in the general election as in the primary. Or at least, let's get California and the ten other big states to award electoral votes based on who won the popular national vote. The California state assembly is currently considering doing just that.

Let's amend the Constitution to give Congress and federal courts oversight over elections to Congress and the presidency. No more Katherine Harrises, no more Kenneth Blackwells, no more Tom Delay redistricting.

Let's get both parties to agree to move the primaries around, with the first states chosen because they had the closest races in the previous presidential election.

Seriously, what kind of logic does Broder think backs up the argument he's making? If New Hampshireites are so independent then what the hell difference does it make for other states to have earlier primaries? Can't they make up their own minds? Or is this just another small town American romanticization where everyone just agrees that people in New Hampshire are so gal dern independent - but the reality is they just seem that way because they always go first? Is Broder supporting Lieberman? If so, I gotta wonder why wouldn't just be straight up and simply advocate for an end to primaries altogether...

As a New Hampshire Native I think Drum is the one who's insane. Not only should New Hampshire have the first primary, but New Hampshirites should be the only citizens allowed to vote period. And only native-born New Hampshire folk should be eligible for elective office. Face it, for a small state we kick all of your asses on every level. Sarah Silverman, Russel Banks, Carlton Fisk, Scissorfight, Josiah Bartlett - we got it going on.

Not sure where I heard this idea, but it always seemed to make sense: The states that were the tightest races in the previous election get the first primary. In this case, the first states to hold primaries in 2008 would be Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. Those were the states whose voters (whichever way the went) were most likely to have had discussions about differing political views with neighbors or members of the same church or PTA. And could possibly understand what kind of candidate could swing these voters to their side.

Kevin et al:

Here is my proposal: Let California or Michigan or whatever state is willing to take the lead do the following: Pass a law that says the presidential primary will be the exact same day as whatever other state has the first primary. The Democratic National Committee will threaten to keep your delegation off the convention floor, but call their bluff. Point out that nobody elected New Hampshire to be the perennial first primary, they just took it. This will create what is called a creative crisis (or something like that), the DNC will have to back down (the stakes are too high), and the New Hampshire hegemony will be broken. The result will be that there will be a more honest approach the next time around.

Power (in this case New Hampshire's) is not given, it is taken, and some other state will have to take it.

The most important thing is that the state that dares to do this has to have a much higher number of electoral votes and convention seats than New Hampshire (not that hard).

Have it in the state with the highest proportion of registered voters who actually voted in the last presidential election.

David Broder could bore a sloth. His eyeglasses need updating from the 1940s. The mock seriousness of conservatives when discussing democratic issues makes my skin crawl. It's like a cannibal writing about their inability to find a good vegetarian restaurant. Repulsive.

We only need one primary, and that should be held in Arizona. Why?

Arizona's Governor, Janet Napolitano has the capacity and capability to cause Republican women to cross the political aisle and vote for a Democrat. Can you name any other Presidential Aspirant who can do the same and in large numbers?

Thus, saving all this pent-up energy and wasted dollars, could be re-targeted on General. Besides, I am tired of hearing all about Kerry, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd, among others. :-)

And lest I forget, I am from Arizona.

RFK vote in 68 in CA should have been huge...one wonders how different the world would be had he lived.

My first thought was to agree with Jason above--I'm sure NH (and Iowa to a lesser extent) have a wonderful cottage industry catering to the quadrennial primary season, and the side junkets that it spawns--like prospective candidate visits two years before the election season kicks off.

But really, the slo-mo unfolding of the various primaries and caucuses (caucusi?) is a little silly in today's 24-hour news cycle, satellite everything, and easy access to information via the Internet, satellite radio, cable news, blogs, and everything else that just flat didn't exist in anything near its current form even 10 years ago, much less 20, 50, or a hundred years back.

Here's a thought (and I don't claim it to be particularly well-thought-out): Three big "Super Tuesday"-style primaries, spaced out at monthly intervals to give the candidates plenty of time to spread themselves around, instead of a month in swing states like Iowa promising yet more generous corn subsidies, while totally ignoring safe red or blue states and their nearly totally decided electoral votes (the electoral college is a whole other problem, however). Let IA/NH be in the first round, but with 14 or 15 other states at the same time.

To moderate the outcome, select 6 solid blue and 6 solid red states (based on the last election) and 4-5 swing states, and institute instant runoff voting. The weak candidates will know exactly how weak their support is, and the more-popular candidates will be floated a bit higher based on first/second/third place finishes. If it's (in a slightly different form) good enough for the Heisman Trophy ceremony, I'm willing to pick national candidates by it too.

Then, of course, you'd rotate the states every cycle, so everyone gets a shot at kingmaking. So to speak.

As far as meaninglessness in primaries, when I voted in the 2004 CA primary, I knew Kerry had the nomination almost totally sewn up, so I voted for who I wanted as the #2 on the ticket--Edwards. The way I figured it, showing Edwards with strong support at that stage would send the message that he'd be a good VP nominee. Not that it helped in the end, unfortunately.

Al,

Seems to me California should be first based on service to country.

Of course the ruling party of Republicans have no respect for those that serve this country.

Read 'em and weep, because the ruling party could care less.

Alabama44
Alaska10
American Samoa5
Arizona62 Arkansas34
California271
Colorado34
Connecticut20 Delaware12
District of Columbia3
Florida111
Georgia77
Guam3
Hawaii13
Idaho16
Illinois104
Indiana52
Iowa31
Kansas27
Kentucky43
Louisiana59
Maine12
Maryland47
Massachusetts41
Michigan94
Minnesota37
Mississippi35
Missouri43
Montana11
Nebraska28
Nevada23
New Hampshire13
New Jersey44
New Mexico19
New York125
North Carolina60
North Dakota13
Northern Mariana Islands3
Ohio118
Oklahoma44
Oregon42
Pennsylvania125
Puerto Rico22
Rhode Island10
South Carolina38
South Dakota17
Tennessee56
Texas234
Utah14
Vermont18
Virgin Islands3
Virginia77
Washington51
West Virginia18
Wisconsin58
Wyoming7

It strikes me that David Broder is not worth talking about anymore except to note how exceptional it is that he was ever regarded as a serious writer.

To me, he is now what he has been his entire life: a crotchity old man.

Thomas1:

Not that I'm anyone to speak for the eminently articulate DiceMan, but cmdicely supports Single Transferrable Vote -- which is another form of rank-order preference voting that differs with IRV only detail, not principle.

I do agree that the EC provides a check against a candidate elected with only a plurality -- and that's important. My suggestion for reform would be to allow more states to allocate EVs proportionally. Not all states will want to do it (smaller states would dilute their power somewhat), but it would be a step in the right direction.

RT's earlier suggestion KICKED ASS, btw. I'm in complete agreement.

Bob

Hear! Hear! Keven

I've been waiting for someone to make that point.

I'm another Californian that feels unrepresented in the primary proccess.

We have the largest economy of any state and most of our representatives apparently think they live in Texas.

I say 'Fuck Em'. Let's have our primary FIRST!!!

Having lived on the boarder Maine shares with New Hampshire for my entire life, please, take it away from them. New Hampshire has had way too much influence since they started being first, in the 50s as I recall, we've had one lousy president after another ever since. I'm in favor of rotating the first spot. It's only fair.

The Electoral College started out as a method of keeping democracy from breaking out and with modern methods of voting and computers the Republican-fascists have perfected using it to steal elections, including New Hampshire in 2000, by the way. It is one of the weakest links in our elections and should be dumped as soon as possible.

It doesn't favor small states, by the way, it allows candidates to ignore any state that they either are sure of not carrying or of any that they are certain to carry. Only a direct election where a candidate and party has to try to get every vote will prevent states from being overlooked. Defenders of the Electoral College are either idiots or liars, when they aren't both.

I hate New Hampshire. I find it preposterous that one state has so much power....

Did I name anyone?

Bottom Ten of List of Charlie's Fake and Cowardly Personas:

#1 Charlie (pretend lawyer handle makes him feel important)

#2 Cheney (this handle made him feel powerful)

#3 Thomas1 (hiding with this handle, no one can find at he is the same psycho who flipped out as" Cheney")

#4 Doug M. (another pretend lawyer handle. Lied about military service with this one)

#5 Henry

#6 Ari

#7 Karl (for one brief day after he was outed as a psycho under his Cheney handle)

#8 MRB

#9 Philip

#10 Marsman

It strikes me that David Broder is not worth talking about anymore except to note how exceptional it is that he was ever regarded as a serious writer.

He's the Dowager Media Whore of the Washington Press Club. I think of him as one of those 18th century duchesses on a crapper.

And I think the primary process should iclude some 'American Gladiator' style humiliation for the candidates just to keep them humble.

They are going to spend years screwing us once they win, let's make them crawl while we can!

Well, I am close enough to New Hampshire to be able to participate in the forums. It's a great process. John Edwards shows up at a coffee shop to spend an hour or so of quality time with those who would like to talk about politics. Wes Clark comes to the high school gym for a speach, and stays until the last questionner is done. These guys are truly impressive, by the way.

Sure it may not be fair to people in California or Alaska, or Florida. To which I say, yep - why is this a surprise? Is there any part of what California does that the rest of us think might not reflect our needs and values?

Well, olvlzl -- I am defending the Electoral College and you said: "Defenders of the Electoral College are either idiots or liars, when they aren't both." I took logic once, a blue moon ago though.
Posted by: Thomas1

And it only took you nine minutes to parse that one out, well aren't you a pretty wit.

Thomas:

Do you understand the difference between the two? It's not that significant.

Bob

Salmo, the states that share a boundary with New Hampshire can't stand it. They don't even share values with their closest neighbors.

Look at the string of lousy presidents we've gotten since New Hampshire had the first primary? Look at the string of losing Democratic candidates. Is it any wonder the a Republican shill like Broder favors keeping it?

Don't be so mean to poor old Dave. He loves hanging out with boring old farts who talk funny and remember voting for Taft over Eisenhower in 1952. It's the only real happiness he has nowadays.

Hey, I started voting in 1976 too. But in Ohio, not California. First vote I ever cast was for Mo Udall. And I've been picking winners like that ever since!

But since 1980, I've been casting the same meaningless vote in California primaries that you have. I can't help thinking the nation's most populous state deserves better. But then, I'm an out of touch elitist. David Brooks said so, so it must be true...

Roddy McCorley, I favored Udall too. As I remember it was New Hampshire that pushed Carter into the front. We can only imagine what would have happened if Udall had won that election. I think, as an example, he would have not listend to Kissinger and David Rockefeller to let the poor, deposed Shah into the country for treatment. That was the act that led to the hostages being taken and that tragic spiral that is still playing out.

Broder's column is silly. The importance of New Hampshire and Iowa in the nominating process is a fairly recent development and deserves no special respect. They have not even done a very good job.

RT's idea is pretty good, having all the larger states wait until the last day to decide the nomination after getting a look at candidates in earlier small states.

It has always seemed bizarre to me how voters outside New Hampshire and Iowa allow themselves to be so heavily influenced by the voters in those states. It reached a ridiculous level last time with the party annointing Kerry as "electable," and democrats voting for him across the country when they hardly knew him and, those who did know him, did not think much of him. I realize the field was weak last time, but I still did not understand why Kerry vaulted ahead of everyone based on modest wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. It was an irrational process. Any objective observer could see that Kerry was going to be a mediocre candidate.

RT's idea of the small states being recognized as just preliminary rounds, if the media and the party actually bought into it, might significantly diminish the problem of undue influene and bad choices by Iowa and New Hampshire.

I agree that the Electoral College should be abolished. It's arcane, antiquated, and simply unfair.

California, Texas, New York and Florida -- and those four states only -- should have their primaries on the same day, a couple of weeks after New Hampshire.

The four most populous states should have a huge say on the question of who wins the nominations. Conveniently, they are two red states and two blue states.

Bravo! The primary system in the US is insane. Though current proposals seem heavily weighted towards giving primaries to states that are home states of current Democratic potential presidential candidates (Nevada, South Carolina) which seems short-sited.

I would be thrilled to get Iowa out of the rotation, so we can end the effective gun to candidates heads to continue pointless subsidies of farms and Archer Daniels Midland.

To the folks who wish to abolish the EC (and I'm not averse to the idea, either), there *is* a serious problem with legitimacy if a candidate gets less than a majority of the popular vote -- like Clinton in both elections. One of the few things the EC does is provide for pretty stable majorities nearly all the time.

Now, if we abolish the EC, I think we'd need to simultaneously introduce some form of rank-order preference voting. Some people like IRV, others STV -- and there are a number of others out there to choose from.

In any case, we have to make sure that the election winner not only garners the majority of votes but also gets over 50%. Rank-order prefernce voting would not only do that, but it would entirely annul the spoiler syndrome. All the Ralph Naders and Ross Perots could run to their hearts' content without jeopardizing a solid majority to the winner.

Bob

It's a small part of what Broder (stupidly) wrote, but my eyes popped at his New Hampshire-will-of-course-ignore-Iowa shtik. Yeah -- they so ignored IA last time that they went from favoring Dean over the field by 10-20 points to favoring Kerry by 10 over Dean in the course of a week. I'm sure the IA caucus results had nothing to do with it.

The real problem is the way the parties -- and too many of its voters -- have decided the early primary/caucus winners must be crowned overall champs right away. In '76, Carter definitely got an important leg up by winning NH, but it wasn't till he won PA in April that he was considered significantly ahead of the field, and the issue was still in doubt till he won OH on the last day of primary voting (a night where he actually lost CA and NJ). After that, the process started accelerating way too rapidly: even though Clinton had a solid lead after IL/MI in '92, the fact that Tsongas dropped out immediately after brought the contest to an end prematurely. Now it seems even when there ought to be some kind of race (as in GOP '00, Dem '04), the voters are anxious to get the matter decided as early as possible, and they rush to a decision.

I'm thankful to have been old enough to follow the '76 campaign start to finish. It was probably the last of the traditional, very competitive races (on both sides).

To the folks who wish to abolish the EC (and I'm not averse to the idea, either), there *is* a serious problem with legitimacy if a candidate gets less than a majority of the popular vote -- like Clinton in both elections.

Um, I don't get it. As you point out, Clinton did get a plurality rather than a majority in both elections, and he was still President. So what is changed? Are you saying that we need a system to pretend that a candidate got a majority, even if they didn't?

The Electoral College doesn't give legitimacy. All it gives us is the possibility that someone will become President without even a plurality of the popular vote, as in 2000. Talk about your legitimacy problems.

David Broder is the biggest idiot in Washington. I know one should offer up more considered criticism than that. But sometimes we just need to call a spade a spade. It's time we put him to pasture. He's done.

"I grew up in California and have voted here since 1976. In my entire life, I haven't once cast a primary vote for president that wasn't completely meaningless. How about writing a column on the unfairness of that?"

Perhaps that's because the last time California hosted a meaningful presidential primary, the winner was subsequently shot.

Either that, or the fact that the percentage of white people has fallen steadily during that period.

Take your pick of either one of those false choices.

I wonder if Broder wrote a similar column regarding the Lamont/lieberman primary.

"Voters there take their role seriously. They turn up at town meetings and they ask probing questions. So do the interviewers at local papers and broadcast stations. So do high school students.

Connecticut voters don't need — or particularly want — guidance from DC, and frequently they ignore the DLC. But they are stuck with DC. Now, thanks to Lieberman, they may be stuck with Lieberman as well, and crowded from behind by Republicans.

Wow. Kevin's trolls are so amazingly persistent and on-the-spot (and, might I say, quite swift with pointless rebuttals of cherry-picked bits of longer posts. I'm sure it's no coincidence that the only part my own personal troll picked out was the only part in bolded text), one might even think someone was paying them.

I don't feed trolls on general principle, but I do have to mention that it was a spectacularly weak attempt. First day on the job?

I would also like to note that it was other posters that recommended abolishing the EC. I merely called it "another problem". You can go look--I'll wait. Colorado in 2004 had an interesting idea in weighting their EVs to a percentage of the state's vote, making it sorta-kinda like a direct election (also known as "democracy", though we are, Constitutionally, a democratic republic, so the EC is still debatably valid). Doing this nationwide would have interesting consequences, since the larger states would again matter in electoral math equations--California and it's 55/45 or so split Democratic/Republican would tip 45% of the state's 55 EVs into the Republican column, whereas Texas' would do something close to the opposite.

I'm just throwing it out as an interesting idea. The chief thing it would do in the very short term is greatly reduce the power in Presidential elections of the sparsely-populated red-leaning states with 3 EVs, like Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana, since anything less than a Utah-scale 67/33 split of the statewide vote would lop off 1/3 of their electoral weighting.

The net effect would almost certainly be more small-d democratic, which, whether or not it lines up with my beliefs in the real world by electing the candidates I prefer, it would be a good thing. Really, anything that makes the citizenry (AKA "The Electorate") more interested and engaged that they actually have a say in which bastards get elected will always make for a healthier, more representative government.

Lastly, while continuing in being entirely off-topic, it's also worth mentioning that the other change that would make the federal government at least more responsive on a local-to-federal level would be to significantly increase the number of Representatives in the House, which would decrease the number of people they're representing, making them more immediately accountable (by being more local--my Congresscritter's main office and larger part of his district is 60 miles away in a much different part of the state) and, with luck, more useful. It would also give back part of the power the lower-population states would be ceding by going with my (well, Colorado's) EC idea. Think about it: say you double the number of reps. Wyoming gets one, maybe two more reps with a corresponding increase in EVs. California doubles its 55 to 110, but they're still splitting on, roughly, a 55%/45% level, so that remains status quo. However, Wyoming with 5 EVs instead of 3, will send 3 EVs (or 60%) to the Repubs (assuming 54% or whatever, off the top of my head), and 2 to the Dems, instead of a 2/1 (or 66/34%) split.

Blah. It's getting too complicated, and I haven't mentioned one thing about primaries. Oh well.

Surely the primary should consist of all the prospective nominees going hunting with Dick Cheney. Whoever comes back with the least buckshot in his face, is the Democratic candidate.

Hell, it would work for the GOP too. And I'd pay to watch that primary.

j,
If Connecticut elects Lieberman, it is hard to see how they will be "stuck" with him.

Eliminating the electoral college takes a constitutional amendment, which is never going to happen due the need for approval by 75% of the state.

The defacto elimination through the state laws giving their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes is a creative end around the constitutional amendment problem, but probably also a longshot. While intellectually it makes sense as a means to eliminate the effect of the electoral college, it feels wrong for California to give its electoral votes to the candidate selected by other states, such as Bush in 2004.

Overall, the electoral college has done okay and is an integral part of our great country, so I say don't mess with it.

"Bravo! The primary system in the US is insane. Though current proposals seem heavily weighted towards giving primaries to states that are home states of current Democratic potential presidential candidates (Nevada, South Carolina) which seems short-sited"

Umm who from Nevada is running in 2008?

Just wondering......

Tomemos:

Well, there's nothing particularly pretentious about rank-order preference voting -- in fact, quite the opposite. Whatever one feels about the EC (and I can be persuaded to lose it), it's a solid reform regardless.

Had there been, say, IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) in 2000, nearly all the Nader vote would've been added to Gore's column, because nearly all the Nader vote would've doubtless counted Gore as their second choice.

Bob

I'm sorry, but a state that has elected Arnold Schwarzenegger governator and appears to be fixing to re-elect him ought not to assume a greater role in the presidential nominating process.

All this hand-wringing over primaries is stupid.

We all know Jeb's going to win.

The Boskin Commission says that Jeb's chances of winning have been understated by as much as 1%.

Two terms of Jeb, then two terms of Neil.

Then two each of Jenna and Not-Jenna.

Jeb Bush probably would be a pretty good president (since be most accounts he has been a successful governor), but realistically, it is at least 4 years and perhaps 8 years before it could happen.

Jenna? Not a great chance. But i probably would take a woman named Bush as more likely than a woman named Clinton.

Everybody here that is saying that states that represent the real, heartland states, states such as New Hampshire, and also the state of Iowa, should take precedence in priority for Democratic primaries, over artificially liberal enclaves that are not states, such as San Francisco, and parts of New York, makes some very good points..

The Democratic Party I think, is inherently dysfunctional. I think it very important that the people of New Hampshire fight against this dysfunction. It seems to me to be a very important thing that New Hampshire should be first in holding primaries. After all, New Hampshire is a state. Ditto Iowa. Thus, they should take special importance in national elections. Because they are states in the United States of America.

But the Democrats seem to think otherwise. It seems to me that what they are trying to say, if effect, is that New Hampshire and Iowa are not in fact, states. This is dysfunctional. Thanks a lot, Democrats.

But i probably would take a woman named Bush as more likely than a woman named Clinton.
Posted by: brian

Most repubs are, indeed, pussies who can't deal with strong women.

:)

I think repubs are fine with you guys taking any woman named Clinton.

I have some sympathy for Hillary with the challenge of trying to look good with all the photographs taken of her (and the fact that she apparently is not naturally a very photogenic person), but I confess to getting a laugh out of Drudge's ability to find all those unflattering photographs of her. The unflattering photographs probably would hurt her in a national election, as unfair as that might be.

Lettuce is Tom Vilsack

I'm sorry, but a state that has elected Arnold Schwarzenegger governator and appears to be fixing to re-elect him ought not to assume a greater role in the presidential nominating process.
Posted by: Jim on September 1, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not a California native.

But there is great wisdom in this, what you say.

My idea for primary reform, is to do it in random order (drawn from a hat, not using a diebold machine), by congressional district. Not by state.

And yes, the Electoral College should be executed. By ritual defenestration.

Total fucking nonsense. I was there in New Hampshire last time. I met those fucking freakshows. Let me say it once and for all nice and slowly: New Hampshire is full of crazy people. I remember listening to the radio there and a woman explained how she wasn't voting for Howard Dean because a doctor didn't leave her a big enough tip once and she thought doctors were all arrogant jerks. That's the kind of 90% white 100% fucking loony tunes people picked John Kerry to run for president.

Why would anyone pick John Kerry to be their presidential nominee?

brian:

A massive outbreak of Political Consultantitis. Everybody felt compelled to put some conceptual idea of "electibility" before their own desires as voters.

Where that came from last time as opposed to other times, I'm not sure ... some of it was a desire to get rid of Bush so strong that it literally deranged people out of their normal thinking patterns. Primary voters thought that to get rid of Bush, they had to step out of themselves. They were dysfunctionally self-critical, thinking that they were "too liberal" and "out of the mainstream" themselves to choose who they wanted, so they had to go by somebody else's criteria.

John Kerry looked good on paper. He had the resume, and -- especially -- he was a decorated veteran.

Problem was, he was a shitty ass candidate, a stiff, an animatronic Lincoln.

It was a disaster. I worked for Dean during the primaries, and I saw it up close 'n' personal in NH. We won my area, Claremont, anyway ...

Bob

The real problem is the way the parties -- and too many of its voters -- have decided the early primary/caucus winners must be crowned overall champs right away.

The party bosses like it that way. Their nightmare is a national convention that isn't orchestrated for TV purposes, and a presidential nomination that takes more than one ballot. (You could be an AARP member and never have lived during a multi-ballot convention; the last was in 1952.)

I like the idea of having a random drawing of states, say the year before the primaries/caucuses, one or two each week in a different, rotating region of the country. For example, let's say the region order drawn is West, East, Midwest, South. The first week, the states chosen might be Oregon and Montana; the second, Maryland and Rhode Island; the third, Wisconsin and Missouri; the fourth, Georgia and North Carolina. The fifth week, it would return to two other western states, and so on.

The randomness would force candidates to conduct different strategies than they do now. Sorry if the consultants wouldn't like it, not to mention the party bosses and David Broder.

I hope the Supreme Court has the guts to tell New Hampshire it cannot run roughshod over the rest of the country, and invalidates its silly, childish "we must hold our primary before anyone else's" law. But I'm not holding my breath.

Can you imagine the fun if each state simply passed a law requiring that thier primary be the first in the nation like NH has? The court battles could last longer than the campaigns.

I have thought for years that we should have one primary day, pref. April 15th just for the poetics of it. Heck you could pick any day between March 15 and June 1 but just one day.

If not then there should be some sort of randomly chosen first primary group, not single states but groups of at least 5-10. 1 primary every 2 weeks or so ending between June 15 and July 15. The post primary period before the conventions are just too damn long and wasteful.

The Electoral College needs some tweaking but Maine may have the right idea (at least I think its Maine, its late and I didn't check this yet). Each elector is chosen by district with the 2 statewide electors only chosen by statewide total. This winner takes all makes no damn sense.

clyde, if apportioning the electors by the popular vote makes sense, how much more sense does it make to just use the popular vote to begin with? I know we aren't going to get rid of the Electoral College any time soon but that doesn't mean that it can't be done eventually. It is an abomination that used to be merely an insult to democracy, that the Republicans used it ONCE to steal an election and impose the worst president in the history of the United States is reason enough to get rid of the thing.

If we are going to have a primary system for choosing a President then it shouldn't be in a fixed order who will go first. Demton at 11:31 points out that despite Broders ignorance of the issue, New Hampshire's absurd first status is compounded by the national media and it has an enormous influence in those alledgly independent thinkers in other states.

Heartland? Where? We should dump the whole notion of 'heartland'. If the United States is one country than New York City is as 'heartland' as Indiana or Iowa or even Kansas. I hear "heartland" and my first thought isn't democracy, it's racist Republican propagnda. Maybe our trouble is that we've had too much heartland and not enough head land in the process. People should use their brains when they vote, not the heart that is far more easily decieved with PR.

I forgot, I do like your idea of every state passing a law that it be first. Now, that WOULD be fun.

Whoever whined about feeding trolls, they should be thought of as target practice. I mock them as practice for thinking up ways of ridiculing Republicans, I don't argue with them. I don't feed them, I mock them.

Can I make these windows display bigger on my screen? I can't see what I'm typing.

免费铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 三星手机铃声 三星铃声 诺基亚铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 移动铃声下载 nokia铃声 波导手机铃声 手机游戏免费下载 免费手机游戏 手机小游戏 诺基亚手机游戏 三星手机游戏下载 nokia手机游戏 摩托罗拉手机游戏 手机小电影 mp4手机电影下载 手机看电影 免费手机电影 手机视频下载 nec手机铃声 联想手机铃声 摩托罗拉铃声 amr铃声 手机彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 炫铃 移动炫铃 手机酷铃 手机电影 夏新手机铃声 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 联通彩铃下载 联通炫铃下载 特效铃声 midi铃声 和弦铃声 搞笑铃声 原唱铃声 mid铃声 cect手机铃声 和炫和旋铃声 海尔手机铃声 索爱手机铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 康佳手机铃声 真人真唱铃声 mmf铃声下载 lg手机铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 西门子铃声 小灵通铃声下载 tcl手机铃声 手机图片 手机铃音 手机动画 图铃下载 手机游戏 手机炫铃下载 手机彩信 手机铃声图片 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内裤 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫电影 美女波霸 美女淫水 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片

New Hampshire's new license plate:

"Vote first or cry!"

Thanks to those probing N.H. voters, we have been given local stiffs like Dukakis and Kerry.

Here is a copy of my e-mail to Broder, fired off upon reading his idiotic piece"

"Well, the Democrats have gone and messed it up again."

It is abundantly clear that you, Beltway "pundits" have made a pact with the devil and sold your soul to the GOP and the White House.

Instead of taking the White House and the Republicans to task for "messing up" a few things such as the occupation of Iraq and the response to the Katrina aftermath, to cite just two of the formidable "messes" that they have made in the past six years, you are chiding Democrats for changing their time - table.

Worse, you and the WaPo's editorial board think this is worth an op - ed piece. The state of journalism in this country is truly pathetic.

Very entertaining thread. And Shag at 7:24: that made me laugh.

Broder, please show us your partisan slip, with this title, The Democrats' Dysfunctional Calendar

As if Republican's don't have very serious dysfunctinal problems all of their own.

How about, "The Republicans' Dysfunctional war in Iraq?"

How about, "The Republicans' Dysfunctional Eithics?"

Why does Repug Broder care what Dems do anyway?

brian: Jeb Bush probably would be a pretty good president

Jeb Bush '08: Third time is the Charm

(leno)

I'm not so sure about doing away with the electoral college either, especially when Kerry was just 1 or 2 states away from winning even without a majority. Besides, is it really fair to let 7 or 8 states out of 50 decide the President?

Isn't that basically how it is now,except worse, enozinho? In 2000, one state decided it all. Same in '04. I'm hearing rumblings that New Mexico could be the one big swing state in '08.
America's Least Wanted

1 or 2 different "battleground" states deciding the election is far better than the same 7 or 8 states deciding every time.

BTW: here's another person to add to Kevin's list of people trying to drive him insane (from today's Washington Post op ed):

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

And why should Americans care who left coasters like yourself want as President? The most important people in the America to listen to are those who live in the heartland of America, not those who are part of the left coast or east coast elite. We should listen to people who live in Kansas, New Hampshire, and Alabama, not liberals who in New York or California.
Posted by: Al

As always, Al expresses the White House view perfectly.

Why don't the Democrats just cut the pretense and hold the first primary in France?

Sadly, we'd probably get better candidates that way.

There should be one big primary day later in the season. Let everyone make their statement without the influence/interference of earlier primaries. This will probably result in there being no clear cut winner, but that will just make the convention more meaningful.

Regarding the Electoral College - It should be abolished. Not for any reasons of fairness really, but because it's harder to rig an election of that size. Small, but important districts that can turn a whole state's electors - much easier to rig. And what's wrong with run-off elections, other countries seem to pull them off without much difficulty.