Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Let the other primary battles begin

The battle over who shall be first to hold their primary. For many years every one was content to let Iowa run their caucuses and then give New Hampshire it's one brief moment in the sun (with snow for effect). And then, in a media fueled burst of me-toism, all the little states wanted to be first because nobody paid any attention to them once the media had declared who the winner should be. And the struggles continue ahead of next years primaries.
The 2012 presidential race is the first to fall under new rules from the Republican National Committee, which had intended the contests to start in February, a month later than in 2008. But at least a half dozen states are threatening to defy the rules and move up their primaries.

The result is that the first ballots are once again likely to be cast in January as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina move up the dates of their contests to protect their franchises as the early voting states.

At the same time, the rush toward the front of the calendar by Florida, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Missouri is accompanied by another trend: several states are pushing back their presidential primaries — or canceling them entirely — because of tight state budgets.
And everybody has their people pushing for their favorite date.

In a perfect world, all the primaries would be held in the first three weeks of June. The states would be grouped by delegate counts or electoral or Congressional district counts, with the smallest states first, middle then largest states last. No campaign may begin before Feb 1. They would then have all summer to have their convention and run for office.

Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]