07-24-2007, 07:00 PM
|
#2270
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Flyover land
Posts: 19,042
|
Primaries
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's one reason. The other is that states like Iowa and New Hampshire know they would become irrelevant if their primaries weren't first, so they fight like dogs to make sure they're first and have some increase influence.
One certainly could design a much more efficient system that would have some primaries earlier and some later, each having a cross-section of states. The early ones would winnow hte field; the late ones would confirm the nominee. For fairness, the states could rotate who was early and late.
|
Sounds like a good idea.
Iowa and NH can suck it. |
|
|
