Arkansas Blog

I like it the way it wuz in
olden times, back room,
cigar smoke filled blue air,
the, "know it alls," stepped
on stage to tell us, "know
nothins," who our nomimee
would be.
Awwww for the goodoledays.

Dream on.

I've been saying this for years. We're crazy to keep letting New Hampshire pick our Presidents/Nominees. They have been doing a terrible job of it.

If you pine for smoke-filled back room nominations, you might try overturning the 17th Amendment. That'll return us to the days of good-ol'-boy wheelin' and dealin' for Senators. Then you hamstring a President.

Here's the Wiki description.
http://tinyurl.com/bg8nu

At first, Max, I was with you on this, but then I read the comments on the blog and had second thoughts. My third thought is that elections are doomed to cheating and corruption no matter how they are conducted. Are we reduced to deciding which cheaters we prefer?

Dream on indeed, no one
under 50 can remember
how we used to pick, or
not pick, our nominees for
prez. Didn't take months or
years or zillions of $$$$$$.
We didn't do so bad,
always seemed to work out
for good of the country.......
Today....my heart is heavy
in my chest..........
I have two teenage gransons
I'm sure bush/vice would
love to have for fodder in
Iraq.

"At first, Max, I was with you
on this, but then I read the
comments on the blog and
had second thoughts.
Posted by: widj"

I read the comments on the blog but have no second thoughts. It's both wrong and stupid to give this much power to New Hampshire and Iowa. It's crazy.

If we would divide the country into 4 almost equal electoral votes or primary delegates, then we could have 4 super Tuesdays or whatever. These super primaries would rotate so every 4 election cycles somebody would be first. Then the primaries might really mean something.

If nothing else will avail, I do think a rotating system of some sort might alleviate some of the cut-and-dried outcomes we keep seeing.

Where is the democratic process written in stone? Isn't it due for an upgrade from pebbles in bowls?

I think the early primary/caucus process has been hijacked by the modern political campaign machines and in turn transformed by new media.

Once upon a time New Hampshire's primary, and then 30 years ago, Iowa's caucus, provided an early test of a candidate's organizational ability, and test of his messages. They were like market tests.

But nowadays, market testing techniques have been turned on these places and they are treated like single state elections. They no longer represent a test flight of a campaign, but rather a market research exercise.

I don't know that a single primary date is the answer, that has unintended downside consequences as well. But clearly Iowa and N.H. are no longer the quaint early tests they once were.

Smoke-filled room or no.

It's a money game, sorry our elections have become that way but we measure them by the money they raise.
If they can do their deals and raise the money in ONE PRIMARY DAY go for it but I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

I would like to see primarys three months before Nov election day. This set up is way to early and winter of next year is far to early to narrow it down to party division, over half a year before Nov.

Most of all we need public campaign finance, imo.. congress takes most of August off each year for raising money, instead of staying in DC and prosecuting the War criminals in the White House.. Senators and Congressmen are disobeying their oath to raise money.. it's that simple and absurd.

The size of our government and economy requires full time attention and with reasonable amounts of over site conducted by congress instead of fund raising we would all be better off financially if the system were changed.. much more they might actually start representing we the people instead of they the corporations and lobbyists.

I like pj's idea about alternating states. (Though it's way too fair/simple to get anywhere within the smokey rooms.) It may take awhile for every state to get its Iowa/NH chance, but at least it would happen. And I'm one of those disgruntled southerners who thinks it's a crock that two states get to pretty much pick our presidents. It's just not right.

I am sick of the debates...already. (Except for the Republican debates 'cause watching those goobers is entertaining...in a car wreck kind of way.)

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of regional system where several states have primaries on the same day over, say, four weeks. The problem is that the states that go first will have more influence than those that come later, as is the case now with New Hampshire and Iowa.

The main problem with a single primary day is the possibility of buyer's remorse afterward...there's no chance to see how the candidates react afterwards to the results of one round of elections.

Had we had one single primary day, Bill Clinton would have come in second to Paul Tsongas in 1992. We wouldn't have had the opportunity to see him re-group, declare himself the "Comeback Kid," and fight his way through all the scandals and allegations to ultimately win the nomination.

Similarly, if John McCain won the nomination in one day in 2000 as he did when he beat George W. Bush in New Hampshire, we wouldn't have had the chance to see Bush's principled and compassionate response in the South Carolina primary weeks later and we wouldn't have enjoyed the past eight years of open and effective government.

(Okay, maybe that's not such a great example!)

I know, I know, we can't assume the candidate who won the NH primaries in 1992 and 2000 would necessarily have swept the field in a national primary. My point is that there's something to be said for the opportunity to see a candidate get his or her nose bloodied, then see if they can recover from it...to see how they respond to adversity, an important quality in a presidential candidate!

What we should actually do is return to the 2/3rds majority vote requirement at the conventions which would force candidates to compete in every state through the convention and maintain moderation and civility in order to garner the support of other candidates as they lose support on the convention floor. It worked for 150 years and we should g o back to it.

Okay,

So the past several years, Democratic Presidental primaries have been a yawn in Arkansas. Remember in 2000 when ol' LaRoushe got 20 percent of the "democratic" vote in Arkansas, 20%? And in 2004 when the DPP arrived in Arkansas a few weeks late when the choices were Kerry, Kucinach, and again LaRoushe.

As long as the DPA of Arkansas quietly takes the filing fees of LaRoushe, and panders to the conservative/rural elements there will never be a real Liberal party in Arkansas to counteract the GOP and the Rwright Rwing. And we will be stuck with the Critchers, Bob Johnsons, Dustin McDaniel, and Mark Pryor as "opposition" to the Republicans.