Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Nowhere Man]

It simply doesn't make sense that some states should have their primaries before others...continually...if not everlastingly.

State laws which state their primary must be first have no basis in the constitution, and present a profoundly silly paradox if more than one participates in such shenanigans.

The solution is quite simple: States should hold their primaries on a rotational basis.

The huge impasse in this situation is due to, again, very silly notions of tradition.

I personally believe that the electoral college should be removed and the size of congress be unfrozen from 435 (or whatever) reps while we're taught in school that the house of representatives grows and declines according to population, which is a bald-faced lie. But those are constitutional issues...

To be a bit bolder, there is no reason that primaries shouldn't be held on a rotational basis. What it would mean is robbing states like Iowa and New Hampshire of their stranglehold of influence on who will be elected.

Tradition schmadition. Iowa and New Hampshire claiming a divine right to having their primaries first is ,thoroughly, a bunch of bullhockey.

It took a few hundred years for people to figure that out. That's sad, but it's even worse if you endorse the status quo.

[Tiger Beer]

Yeah, I always found that weird as well.

I mean, candidates going door-to-door in Iowa, holding events to just about every small town in that state. Candidates 'popping in' for dinner and having it televised for publicity. Every candidate you can imagine walking around with overalls and a flannel shirt to 'appeal' to those voters.

I am very glad (I think everyone is except Iowans) to see other primaries move it ahead. Still doesn't solve the real problem with it though.