Reader comments
Got a better way to elect a president?

Got A Better Way to Elect a President?

Yes, I hear in England that campaigning 12 weeks or more before an election is not allowed. The campaigns here last way to long. 1 1/2 our of every 4 years is to much. Lets cut back campaign time.

I would strongly endorse a single, nation-wide primary held on the same day.

And I'd put it as late in the year as possible, and shorten the campaigns to begin in January. Long, drawn-out campaigns only seem to sour the voters on the whole process and waste a lot of money that could be used better elsewhere. Information flows so quickly today, there is no need to campaign for 12-15 months.

Good article. At least we don't assassinate the candidates, or riot in the streets killing more people. We may not have a perfect system for electing a president, but it's the best and most civilized way available in the world.

I think that the campaigns have usually been about this long, but in the past, we didn't have the media shoving it down our throats every day. There are some political news junkies like myself who enjoy hearing about it almost on a daily basis. Political news is like my comics.

"A lot of people have been asking me why those two states get so much attention." Answer: They can't see past the T.V. commentators' cheer leading, like a basketball game, and so they have a hard time keeping a perspective. Remember, Iowa has about 2.9 million people and Utah has 2.5 million. Huckabee was the republican winner in a evangelical/Baptist state, where many are dedicated Mormon haters. Many think Mormons are the children of the Devil. On the other hand, if Utah were having its primary first, I don't think the results would be anywhere near the same.

Since many Americans are unable(too stupid) to get past the media hype in the early states, I think the rotation idea would be a good option, where they are put into about 3 groups of diverse states and then you move up each election cycle. All of them at once makes it difficult for the voters and candidates to learn. But, we aren't going to see any change and I hope the media and folks learn about the changes that will happen on Feb. 8 Super Tuesday where it really counts.

The best single improvement would be getting rid of the electoral college; I'm tired of my presidential votes being tossed in the round file - and that's exactly what happens to the presidential vote of anyone in this state who doesn't vote for the Republican candidate. If this reform is not made, given the presence of internet technology, we'll soon see formal brokerages in votes accross state lines (it almost happend the last time around); then the process will be more perverse than ever.

I really like the idea of combining aspects from the two last proposals. Have small States hold their primaries first. But rather than random grouping, group the small States geographically so as to minimize travel expense.

One can easily imagine an inter-mountain west primary, a midwest primary, a southern primary, and a new england primary region for SMALL states. Follow that up with 3 or 4 primary dates for larger States, also grouped geographically and you end up with 7 or 8 primary dates, rationally and logically grouped.

And yes, this does give small States a slight advantage relative to their population. The total advantage still rests with the higher population States, they just have a little less of an advantage than their numbers would suggest. That is NOT a bad thing as the writers of the Constitution agreed.

Both the make up of the Senate, minimum guaranteed representation in the House, and the allocation of Electors in the Electoral College work to reduce the disparity in power between large and small States.

FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy has some good ideas about improving the process to elect the President of the United States.

Google "National Popular Vote" for more information.

I generally agree with the proposal from "Take the Best of Two". If you created the blocks so that each one carried a similar number of delegates, then I think you could use a lottery to determine the order of the blocks. For example, California may go first this year and small Northeastern states second. In four years, small Western states may go first followed next by a Florida/Georgia block.

We cannot get rid of the Electoral College. There is no better protector of states rights. It allows minority states like Utah to avoid getting completely overrun politically by the big city, urban elite (LA, NY, etc.), which would be the candidates' only interest in a direct popular election.

I think the best solution is to do a blind caucus vote in each state. The vote would start in the East, and would move state to state heading west, with each state�s vote separated by a day or two. The results would not be released until all 50 states have voted. That way, no state�s vote has any undue influence on the others, especially states that aren�t a true representation of the nation�s voter makeup, there�s no rush to have your state�s vote as soon as possible or on the same day, and it would save the candidates from having to jump all over the county but they could slowly move West with the vote. Obviously, there would be exit polls so the press could declare �winners� in each state, but everyone knows those aren�t entirely accurate, we wouldn�t know how many delegates a state gave to a candidate, and the weight to the exit polls wouldn�t be as much as an actual declared victory in a state the reveals its results.