This is the first presidential election I've really followed from start to finish. In 2004 I didn't care about the caucuses, mainly because I was a Bush supporter and I wasn't interested in who the Democrats put out to run against him.
My newfound understanding that Iowa and New Hampshire have a huge say in who each party nominates for the presidency does not make me happy. Why do states that have populations of 3 and 1.5 million, respectively, get to decide who will be president for a country of 350 million people?
Is it because their caucuses are early? Shoot, Wyoming had a caucus yesterday and no one made a big deal about it. Sure, they've only got 500,000 people in their state (and they're outnumbered by the sheep), but Wyoming's three electoral votes count as much as anyone else's.
Why can't we hold a nationwide primary? In today's electronic age, votes can be gathered and counted in every precinct in the nation and then digitally transmitted to a central location and immediately tallied. It would take a single day. Let everyone choose their two favorite candidates from a party of their choosing, and then the candidates who received the most votes would be who we vote for in the general election.
This idea most likely has plenty of holes in it, but I'd prefer it to the current system.
1 comment:
I agree. Why can't we just have a set national primary day and then a set election day. Furthermore...why isn't election day a national holiday so working people can get to the polls? Or at least a national half/day holiday. Honestly...we take off Labor day? President's day and plenty of other ridiculous days, what's one more?
Post a Comment