Does anyone find it ironic?
 

That with all the whiney fall-on-your-sword bitching and conspiracy theory about disenfranchised voters the Demoncrats would turn around and disavow Florida demoncratic votes from being counted in the national primaries? How the hell is that any better for voters who want to have a say in the process of choosing Hitlery or Obama?

I find the entire primary date position jockeying situation ridiculous. Just have a national primary.

I must agree. Force them all to equal footing on the same day like an election, or sub election in this case.

Yeah, why do they do it like that?

To give the media something to talk about.

oh, so it serves no real purpose?

Well no it serves a purpose. To choose the delegates and ultimately choose who gets to run in the race. To bad it really is designed to exclude third parties. More here, including the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ential_primary

yes, but why a small dribble of primaries followed up by 'all the rest'? That's the main part I don't get. I understand the rest of the process.

I don't have an answer but some of the explanation is in the link under history and after that.

great question - followed by why wasn't that raised by any national media?

by having the primaries scattered around the calendar and country the theory is that more voters will get a chance to actually see, meet, hear the candidates and be able to make a more informed decision than they would otherwise. I think there is value in seeing these professional pols react to the somewhat bizarre situations and questions they encounter in small towns in Iowa, etc.

Wow, we agree on something. I need to sit down.

I think there should be a law that all primaries and caucuses are to be held on the same day in all 50 states. This would prevent smaller states from having an inordinate amount of influence over the national elections.

Or continue having primaries on a staggered schedule, but put the results in Al Gore's lockbox, only to be opened after the last primary. Then release the nationwide results. That way, the early states would have no more influence than the late ones, and the candidates would still have to meet and greet everyone.

The problem with that is the candidates would only focus on the big states that have the most electoral votes - like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. So about 45 states would be ignored. I don't think 5 states should choose the fate of the U.S., nor do I think a person in California or New York should be catered to by the candidates while everyone in the other 45 states will only ever see the candidates on tv. Lookout123 is right on the reasoning behind it. But the voters in Iowa and NH were catered to way more than any other state will be, and that's not right either.

I think it could be more condensed, and multiple primaries on the same day or week, instead of the candidates focusing just on Iowa for a month, then running up to NH for a week... Maybe 5 states each week for 10 weeks. Instead of the slow build up to Super Tuesday and then the slow trickle to the convention.

Clinton was criticized by Edwards for not sticking around longer in SC and running off to campaign in Nevada. Well... she needs to campaign in every state and can't just stick around each state until after the primary. And he didn't stict around SC either, but still criticized her.

I don't get the Florida and Michigan thing. Their primaries don't count because they held it earlier than the democratic party approved of? So disenfranchise two entire states democratic population over a quibble on what date? Does holding it before Super Tuesday really impact the democratic primary process that much that they shouldn't count? Come on.