Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yavin4

(35,406 posts)
41. Then the candidates would have to spend at least two years raising money for a national primary
Sat Mar 5, 2016, 02:52 PM
Mar 2016

They would have to campaign mostly through ads. The media would have an even bigger role as their coverage would dictate who reaches the American people.

Not a bad idea Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2016 #1
It's not a terrible idea... Agschmid Mar 2016 #2
I hadn't thought about the underdog but i would think that it would give them enough time redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #7
We would be much more like a democracy. K&R Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #3
It would guarantee a trump vs Clinton yeoman6987 Mar 2016 #40
I'd rather that the whole nation vote for the national office of president. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #42
That makes at least two of us, Blus4u Mar 2016 #4
Love it! liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #5
I would support a national primary day in May or June(nt) bigwillq Mar 2016 #6
Pluses and minuses to both ways.... daleanime Mar 2016 #8
It's the way things are run now that shuts out candidates that don't have the party's blessing. liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #11
Can't have that: harder to control the rabble. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #9
The Established "Two-Party" (wink wink) system Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #10
Great plan for nominating Hillary, for example Proud Public Servant Mar 2016 #12
I think it is the complete opposite. It is the way things are run now that allows the liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #13
Then you're not thinking it through Proud Public Servant Mar 2016 #18
Dreaming is not a good idea I guess. redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #21
I don't think so redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #16
You put your finger on it - it's money, not timing Proud Public Servant Mar 2016 #45
It would be a lot easier to steal an election with only one jwirr Mar 2016 #50
Things to add to that wishlist Mufaddal Mar 2016 #14
Abso freakin lutely. liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #15
Never happen, and probably a bad idea Spider Jerusalem Mar 2016 #17
Wouldn't have mattered this year MSMITH33156 Mar 2016 #19
A candidate would need a billion dollars to even sufrommich Mar 2016 #20
Well funded establishment candidates would always win (nt) Recursion Mar 2016 #22
The well off or well funded would have a big advantage. Kaleva Mar 2016 #23
That's exactly how it works now. liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #25
Think of Bernie's situation Kaleva Mar 2016 #29
There is much about our system that needs to change. All I know is I feel the party is doing liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #33
A national primary hill2016 Mar 2016 #24
One problem: We have a federal government, not a national one. cherokeeprogressive Mar 2016 #26
The parties are already getting to interfere. That is the problem. liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #27
That's irrelevant. cherokeeprogressive Mar 2016 #28
Well that may be the way it is but if we want our votes to count we have to come up liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #30
IA and NH certainly shouldn't have as much influence as they do. Garrett78 Mar 2016 #31
"Elect ME" is speech you'd not use the First Amendment to protect? cherokeeprogressive Mar 2016 #32
I'm saying anyone can run initially, but... Garrett78 Mar 2016 #36
Democracy would break out all over. Do we really want that? Autumn Mar 2016 #34
The biggest problem with this is the cost MineralMan Mar 2016 #35
That's why I suggest 2 or 3 shorter rounds of campaigning and voting. Garrett78 Mar 2016 #37
We don't even have a national election, we have 50 synchronized state elections. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #38
I think the TV networks hold Iowa and New Hampshire sacred. redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #39
No, the parties have found them useful and those small states zealously guard the privilege. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #46
Then the candidates would have to spend at least two years raising money for a national primary Yavin4 Mar 2016 #41
You need more than that or the money decides. JackRiddler Mar 2016 #43
The establishment would absolutely LOVE that. Nye Bevan Mar 2016 #44
5 rounds of voting Chitown Kev Mar 2016 #47
Article II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution BainsBane Mar 2016 #48
Take a look at how the MSM has suppressed news of Bernie's jwirr Mar 2016 #49
One thing that would happen oldandhappy Mar 2016 #51
Nice Idea but how about this one. PFunk1 Mar 2016 #52
Interesting idea. redstatebluegirl Mar 2016 #55
What would happen if we could vote by phone or computer? randr Mar 2016 #53
I agree that the way the US runs BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #54
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»What would happen if we h...»Reply #41