Amazon.com Widgets
  • Screw it !

    Why not . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

  • Screw it !

    Why not . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

  • The Candidates Running

    I believe that the candidates need to be known. The national primary lasts one day and all you would know about the candidate is what is in their speech. Donald Trump for an example would benefit because of his speech. But soon enough, we all found about how racist he was and about his ideas. Less began to vote for him because of this and I think that is important.

  • Unfair and Biased

    Why do Iowans and New Hampshire residents get all the attention. 1 in 300 Americans live in New Hampshire, and yet every candidate spends more money in New Hampshire than in many other states. We need a national primary to ensure that the other states get an opportunity to get an equal chance to vote and learn about the candidates.

  • Iowans count more than the rest of us. Reality sucks!

    Start a nationwide primary, like real voting countries do. The whole spectacle of Iowa irritates many folks every four years - Why is a mostly white, mid-West, relatively conservative/red state deciding who continues on to the other state voting contests? By the time in 2016, the citizens of my state get a chance to have their say, the fields will be down to two or three Republicans and maybe only one Democrat. Where is the democracy in that?

  • Give Everybody a Voice

    Under the current system, numerous states are left out of the process. Each voter should have a say in who the nominees are. Why should early primary states have such an influence, it is not fair. How are New Hampshire and Iowa more representative of the US than any other? A national primary involves all voters and makes everybody equal. It is an obvious solution.

  • Yes

    I think that it is a good idea because it will focus the voters down to less choices. It could be a whole big mess if we just had one election where you voted for anyone that was running. This way your party can unite behind one candidate and try to get them elected.

  • Yes

    In both the national primary and state contests, parties should try the Australian system of instant runoff voting. It avoids "vote splitting"—a candidate winning with 40 percent even though 60 percent strongly prefer another—by allowing voters to indicate a first, second, and third choice and simulating a runoff. Not only would it uphold majority rule, but it would discourage excessive negative attacks because candidates would need to earn second choices from backers of losing candidates.

  • Election Reform Long Overdue

    The electoral college is an outdated method of voting designed to protect against an illiterate voting populace. Voting is very easily done now with mobile Americans able to get to polling places easily without a horse and buggy. A national primary makes sense in that all 50 states hold elections on the same day. One state won't hold sway over another such as New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina or Nevada's early primaries. It's unfair to suppose one group of voters is more important than another. A national primary, or some kind of election reform, may even bring more people to become involved in America's electoral process.

  • Screw it !

    Why not . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

  • The Candidates Running

    I believe that the candidates need to be known. The national primary lasts one day and all you would know about the candidate is what is in their speech. Donald Trump for an example would benefit because of his speech. But soon enough, we all found about how racist he was and about his ideas. Less began to vote for him because of this and I think that is important.

  • Is Not Practical

    There are two main issues. First, it would disrupt grassroot politics or politicians coming and personally meeting voters. Secondly, no smaller candidates that are kicked out after some small candidates can afford a national candidate, so we would only be faced with candidates such as Hillary or Trump, SuperPac or self funded. Basically, we would never be abled to connect with them and we would only have highly publicized and funded candidates.

  • It is not

    Come on people. We can't do this. It will give all the big money contenders a higher chance of winning. Also the current system produces better nominees. Lastly, we would lose virtues like face to face meetings of candidates. We would also lose the importance of Grass Roots politics _.

  • Lkj lkj lkj

    Laskjdf a jadkf kadkfd hfjd hf djf sadfdhaf j j j jj j j j j j j jj j j jj j j j j j j j j j j j j jj j j j j j j jj j j j j j j j j

  • It won't change much.

    A national primary seems like it would be a good idea, but all it would do is shift emphasis from the states who went first (like now) to the states that had the most delegates, more like the electoral college system. States that are locked in or otherwise "not important" still won't get any attention.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.