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.
|
Right. FWIW, Fringey's reason should not be underestimated. If the primary is a single, 50 state primary, only the Clintons, Obamas, Romneys and Bloombergs of the world would have a chance of doing anything, and even then they'd have to raise a couple hundred million just to win the primaries.
