Is there a better primary system?

1LT Aaron Barr — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:29:09 -0400

As a Republican who's had to hold his nose for the last 2 Presidential elections, I can't help but feel that our current primary system is completely dysfunctional and fails to bring forward the best candidates. It gives false weight to small states early in the process and sets us up to have a bad candidate for the general election.

Personally, I'd like to see the country divided into 6-8 regions of about the same number of states and then have a state from each vote on the same day, say two weeks apart, until a candidate is chosen. If we want to defer to tradition, allow Iowa and New Hampshire to be the states that go first in their regions and have the biggest state in each region vote on Super Tuesday but please, we need something better!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 1 at 2015 2:32 PM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:32:16 -0400

Absolutely. Abolish the Electoral College and make it a popular vote!

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jul 1 at 2015 2:32 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:32:45 -0400

I would like to see a free for all when it comes to running with or without party backing and 5 days for everyone to vote, provided they can find a good way to ensure vote integrity

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 1 at 2015 2:52 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:52:44 -0400

1LT Aaron Barr I believe the current system is broke as well. I think the popular vote should be the deciding factor. I never really understood why the Electoral College was put into place. Here is what critics are saying since the Election in 2000 when the popular vote was greater for the loser than the needed Electoral Votes the winner:

"Critics argue that the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President. The Electoral College gives a numeric advantage in the election of the president to the smaller states, as the minimum number of electors for the small states is three compared to one for the election of representatives. On the other hand, the winner-take-all method of voting favors the larger states. On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election. A number of constitutional amendments have been proposed seeking to alter the Electoral College or replace it with a direct popular vote."

I don't know if the political machines that actually run this country will allow the Electoral College to go away, but something needs to be done.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jul 1 at 2015 3:08 PM

1LT Aaron Barr — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:08:20 -0400

All, just as a reminder, this was about the primary election system, not the general election.

That said, I would like to see the Electoral College be reformed somewhat. Under our current system, each state gets a number of electors equivalent to the number of Representatives and Senators it has in Congress. Rather than the current system, in which most states are winner takes all, I'd like to see the 2 Senator electors go to the candidate that wins the overall popular vote in each state with the rest divided proportional to the overall popular vote.

For example, I'm from Pennsylvania, which has 20 Electoral Votes. Barack Obama won the state 52-47% and got all 20 of those votes. Under the system I'd propose, Obama would've gotten 12 (10 of the 18 plus the 2 Senate votes) and Romney 8. I think if we had a system like this it would make Presidential races more competitive and more representative of the nation as a whole.

Sadly, this probably won't happen or it will for the wrong reasons. States that are close and where the party that loses the Presidential election controls the state government, such as PA again, might be persuaded to do this but they wouldn't in Texas any more than Democrats would in California. Sad, really.

Response by Maj Ron Jones made Jul 1 at 2015 4:03 PM

Maj Ron Jones — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:03:40 -0400

Not a bad suggestion...certainly better than our current system.

Response by LTC Eric Coger made Feb 11 at 2016 7:13 AM

LTC Eric Coger — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:13:25 -0500

They could simply hold a 50 state lottery each year to determine primary order; however, having early primaries in smaller states gives those states some attention and helps cull the herd before spending too much money and time on non-viable candidates.