Holding all primaries on the same day gives the advantage to the incumbent
and/or whoever has the most money. Holding early primaries in small states
allows a less affluent candidate to gain exposure and credibility (and thus the
increased ability to raise funds for more expensive large states). McCain did
well here in NH, and gave him enough exposure for the people to learn why he is
more than what his handlers and the media said he was: he has a mean streak,
holds grudges, has few friends among his co-workers, and is willing to spout the
accepted government line on the 2nd amendment in order to get 'soccer mom'
votes, contrary to his claims. If there had not been a long period of exposure
for McCain between NH/Iowa and Super Tuesday, most people would not have found
this out. Additionally, if the primaries were not open primaries (i.e. people
could cross party lines to vote in a primary), then 3rd party candidates would
have better showing. Primaries are not to select popular candidates among the
population, but popular candidates among party membership. If you insist on
being an independent, then you shouldn't get to select which nominated candidate
you get from each party. Thats what the write-in candidate is for.
Brian D Williams wrote:
> PROBLEM: Primaries staged over several months may eliminate the
> overall most popular candidate. (I.E. McCain)
> SOLUTION: Hold all primaries on the same day.
> Okay, I'm zeroing in on another big problem here, the primary
> The big problem here is not only when the primaries are held, but
> the fact that individual states have different rules. John McCain
> got knocked out by the "Super Tuesday" winner-take-all vote in
> Another problem is people cross-voting in the primary, trying to
> knock out the other parties most important candidate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT