In the 2000 presidential campaign, early primaries enabled George W.
Bush and Al Gore to secure the two major party nominations eight months
before the November general election. In essence, the earlier a state
holds its primary, the more influence that state has on national
politics; not surprisingly, many states have moved their primaries
earlier and earlier.
Does this stifle democracy? Should
Congress pass legislation forcing later primary dates in upcoming
election years?
Responses:
Subject: Early Primaries From:Frank Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:47 AM
The current system of allowing one or two states to influence the
national standing of candidates for the presidency is unfair to the
vast majority of voters. One suggested method to avoid this bias is to
have a national primary day.
I agree with this writer that all state's primaries should be held on
one day. I believe, given the fact that the presidential candidates
have already been chosen, election-day apathy will be high.
Subject: Primary Elections - Both Democratic & Republican From:Edward T. Graney Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:19 PM
I have been around a long time now, and finally I can know whom my
political candidates running for the highest office in the are eight
moths before the general election. Isn't that great? No! It is not
great. It's a reflection of another ethical laxness in our so-called
sophistocated society. Some mention a National Primary Election Day.
And, in my belief, that's the only way to go, eliminating the
advantage of high electoral vote states. In essence they actually form
a prejudice of the entire system, by influencing the outcome of the
primary election. And that is not only not democracy at its finest,
it's down right dishonest. And, sadly, our politicians know it. Another
immoral and unethical process pushed down the throats of the American
public. Although I did vote in the California primary election, I voted
against the entire philosophy of my elected political party and cast my
vote for the most intelligent, honest and moral man on the podium -
Alan Keyes. At least my conscience is clear.
The primaries like the last one kill democracy. Money and sophisticated
propaganda win. Most of the discussion qestions by moderators vere
stupid, trivial and repetitive. Where were questions about world trade,
environment, healthcare, corruption, foreign policy, etc.?
Subject: Primarys From: Peter B. Thomas Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:49 PM
Consolidated and/or regional primarys, and primarys held late,
will almost certainly increase the importance and success of 'big'
money in the campaign process.Presently big money usually must try to
move early and hold on ; they won't always get their way.The more
competitions they more competitive the process.
Subject: Primarys From: Ed Atkinson Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:45 AM
Hold the primaries 18 months in advance if you want to! Just space them
far enough apart that the candidates have the time to actually go to,
or speak to, the voters in a given state, to outline and explain their
stands on the issues, and what they plan to do. No more "Super
Tuesdays"! The national media has undermined the basic tenets of our
electoral system; instead of the candidates going to the voters, and
proving themselves to the voters, it has become a shell game, with the
liberal media in charge, deciding FOR the general population who is
going to be their candidate! This past 'super Tuesday' was an
orchestrated media extravaganza, which resulted in several quality
candidates being denied fair access to the voters, because the media
had already seen to it that there were only two viable candidates!! I
am just grateful that their "Democrats for McCain" lollapalooza was cut
off at the knees!!!
Primaries are a disgrace to the democratic process! First of all,
primaries, when held, should be open to all registered voters,as are
the elections themselves. The primary ballots should be structured in
such a way as to allow an individual to express his preference for the
best candidate of the choices put forward by each party, and it should
be mandatory that one selection be made from each party listed on the
ballot, thus avoiding concerted efforts by one party to finess the
other. Second, the primary season should be limited to the six months
prior to the election. This will limit to costs incurred by the
candidates and tend to force concentration on the issues facing the
nation rather than the mud slinging which goes on today for two years
prior to an election.
Subject: primaries From:natalie Date: 08 Aug 2000 1:56 AM
I feel totally disinfranchasied because by the time my state's primary
rolls around my candidate has usually withdrawn. Why should New
hampshire and Iowa decide for the rest of us? I strongly favor
regional primaries all within a two-week period so that EVERYONE's vote
counts!I will probably not vote for president in 2000 as a way of
protesting this undemocratic way of choosing the candidates. Low
turnout is not from apathy, but from disgust!
Subject: Primaries From: Dee Date: 08 Aug 2000 3:10 PM
Why have a Presidential "election" when the Electorial Vote is what
decides. What happened to "For the people, By the people?"
Subject: Primaries From: Dee Date: 08 Aug 2000 3:07 PM
1. Some people should learn how to spell2. The primaries should NOT be
primaries, but an EQUAL opportunity for ALL who wish to run to do so.
If the decision is already done before hand we are wasting our monies
on this, which could be better spent somewhere else.
Subject: Primaries From: Paul Date: 08 Aug 2000 3:33 PM
Let's not confuse the Primary process with the General Election. The
Primary is the means by which political parties select their nominees
for office. Each party may establish its own rules and timing, but in
order for all parties to have a level paying field the candidates must
be selected at approximately the same point in time. The problem lies
with small states wishing to receive attention, and candidates wishing
to "press flesh" to the greatest degree.
