Why can’t Idaho choose presidential candidates?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Why is there such a tight stranglehold on America’s presidential candidate selection system? Why do Iowa and New Hampshire have this market locked up? Why is it that other states who attempt to increase their involvement in selecting America’s presidential candidates by moving up their primary dates face such open hostility from both national political parties and candidates themselves? Why is the Democratic party suing a state for moving up their primary date?
I think this needs to be addressed by congressional legislation spelling out a national primary schedule. If left to the states, there will be endless leapfrogging of primary dates as states try to gain influence. I think the best way to run national primaries would be to have ten weeks of primary Tuesdays, and each week has five states running a primary.
How to decide which states go first and last? If we let bigger states go first, the later small states become irrelevant because candidates get their votes locked up anyway. I think we should start the primaries with the smallest states, each week progressing to the larger states. The first primary week would feature voting in Wyoming, District of Columbia, Vermont, Alaska, and North Dakota. Don’t these states appear more representative of America than Iowa and New Hampshire?
The second primary week would feature voting in South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, and Hawaii. Idaho would vote our primary in the third round, along with New Hampshire, Maine, Nebraska, and West Virginia. The final round would feature Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas, and of course California.
This method seems to be the most fair and democratic, and still conducts the presidential primary system in an effective and organized manner. Thus it will probably never be considered.
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Perhaps why we should be asking our legislators why they failed to support the formation of a “western states primary” when there was a push to form it years ago.
This is an idea that is still viable, if we can get legislative support for it.
Vote:
0 0 Why not just have a general election and let the citizens of this country elect their president? There’s no democracy in this country. We’re stuck with whoever the electoral college gives us as president!
C’mon Mike….I’m sure you’re all for this three ring presidential circus they call the election process….give us YOUR views!
Vote:
0 0 The primaries are a good way to weed out candidates for office. However, the more important part to me is the fact that until we take the money out of elections nothing will change for the better no matter what type of system is used.
Public financing of campaigns is the only way to go. Take out the lobbyist money and other special interests. Politicians will no longer have to make promises to donors that go against the public good.
Vote:
0 0 I think a general election is the way to go as well. Get rid of all the special interest groups and lobbyists money and let the best person win based on something other than campaign contributions. Get rid of the electoral college and put the power BACK into the hands of the American citizens. (Where it belongs!)
Vote:
0 0 The reason they won’t do that 007 is because then our government wouldn’t be in control. And after all, that’s all our government wants….is to control and keep putting fear into the hearts of all Americans. Fear and control…that’s what it’s all about. keep the general public passive and fearful of everything. That will keep them spending more money and make them afraid to come out of their houses and their “comfort zones”. Yeah….it’s a wonderful way to live life!
Vote:
0 0 I think we need primaries for parties to weed out all the folks who could be on the ballot…those ballots would get might hefty if everyone could be on one. But, then that puts the power in the parties instead of in the electorate.
It’s already very much in the hands of those who are able to raise the campaign funding (read: powerful wealthy support from sources that expect some return from their investments…)
Joe, I don’t think the smallest states in population are more representative of the United States (I try to use that vs ‘America’ because Canada is part of the Americas, as are Panama and Paraguay) than citizens who live in Iowa or New Hampshire.
I think we all have valid views no matter where we live, but unfortunately not all of us matter in the current process.
Aunt Rose, I’m not sure if you’re being facetious, but the way things are going with this regime, it sure feels like that’s the safest course of action for a citizen who doesn’t support the current powers-that-be, these days.
Vote:
0 0 Primaries are very necessary process to weed out unviable candidates. But it is a bit odd that two states that are statistically insignificant like Iowa and New Hampshire have such a huge influence on who will be the next president. I honestly think they should open the primaries with several states at once to more representative of the country as a whole.
Vote:
0 0 The reason I think we should go in rounds starting with the smallest states is so those states are not passed over. Having California and Florida vote primaries on the same day as Idaho and Wyoming means candidates go to those states instead of ours. Holding primaries among smaller states on the same day more likely means candidates would spend some time in each of the small states, building their momentum.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
Just note that for Democrats in Idaho, our participation in the presidential selection process happens February 5th (with 21 other states, IIRC), since we participate via caucus, not the May primary.
The caucus will start (promptly) at 7:00 pm at the Bennion SUB multipurpose room at University Place.