Primary's

I think all states' primaries on one day is an excellent idea.

At least our state would get a little more attention than we do now.

Why should Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina "weed out the candidates" for us?

This is what I was thinking too, plus there is less chance to "strategize" among contenders before some states get to vote, making the people's voice as a unit more important.



Yeah, his ad came up for me too...it's a waste of electrons around here.

I was kinda scared there for a minute Woody, I thought you put that OBAMA ad on the sight.

Not in this lifetime..

;D

I'm only speculating here so don't get too riled up. In Indiana (which is different than many other states) we have our actual federal primary in May coupled with our state primary. One defines delagates and candidates for federal elections and the other for state elections. I can see the day when voting (both state and federal) will be electronically from home. No more excuses on why you didn't vote. I actually favor the current system as it does weed out the non-contendors before we actually vote. You can still write in Ron Paul if you want to.

Anyway Indiana elects actual delagates (Iowa's caucus system for example does not). I don't believe there is any federal law that can force all the states to hold their presidential primary elections on the same day. Another issue would be the money needed to campaign for every state. Probably none of the candidates today could get the money for that.

Bottomline, I have no problem with the current system as my vote always counts one way or another. (I usually vote Dem in the primary and the correct way in the general election).

Jack

Since I think that Indiana is mostly a Democrat state when it comes to elections and I believe that more people originally registered the same way their parents voted. And in Indiana you have to vote the way that you registered in the primary's the best thing for those who are registered as Democratic to show their displeasure against either Hillary or Obama would be to vote for someone else if there is a third choice. Either that or re register to a different political party.

We are most certainly not a Democrat state when it comes to presidental elections. Can not remember the last democrat presidental canidate who won Indiana. We might have a democrat for governor and our share of democrate elected officials but for president it is most certainly Republican.

Voting against a particularly unsavory candidate in an opposing party to keep them off the ballot is sometimes a tactic that works, IF enough voters can be persuaded to join in and IF you're assured that the candidate in your preferred party will win the nomination without needing your delegates. Only problem in this particular primary is I can't decide whether Clinton or Obama is the lesser of two evils. I totally agree with some others who commented about Indiana not holding much sway over who will get the nomination, but the date on which we vote has little to do with that. Because we might possibly want to nominate a Ron Paul, for example, doesn't mean he would stand a better chance of being around after the rest of the country voted. Iowa, although the first state to hold a primary, has had little affect on the outcome to date. Considering our population, we shouldn't affect the outcome as much as California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Ohio and other more populated states. The process is indeed confusing and complicated, but nevertheless reflects a pretty true popular vote. The real problem with the primaries IMHO, is the power of the media. A long, drawn out time between the beginning and end to the primaries gives the media a lot to think about and a lot to spin on. Too few people do their homework and only rely on media reports (obviously biased) on which to base their voting decisions.