Julia wrote:
>I agree on the idea of having primaries all at once.
I completely disagree. It would make upsets in the primary almost
impossible. Having all primaries at once would heavily favor those with
the most money and political connections.
What I think should be done, is to divide the nation into 10 regions.
I - ME, NH, MA, RI, CT
II - NY, PA, NJ, DE, VT
III - MD, VA, NC, SC, District of Columbia
IV - GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, Puerto Rico
V - TN, KY, MO, AR, WV
VI - OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, MN
VII - ND, SD, IA, NB, KS
VIII- ID, MT, UT, WY, CO,
IX - NV, AZ, NM, TX, OK
X - CA, OR, WA, HI, AK, Guam, American Samoa
Each Presidential cycle, one *State*, is drawn at random from each of the
ten regions, and the States are placed in order from 1-10, from least
primary delegates to most primary delegates. Starting with the first full
week of February, States #1-10 have their primaries for the next ten weeks.
After that, the ten regions are placed in random order, and the remaining
States/Districts/Territories have their regional primaries over the next
ten weeks.
JDG
P.S. I would also introduce "Australian" (single transferrable vote)
balloting for the primaries too, but thats another discussion.
P.P.S. Yes, Region III has only four States and Region VI has five States.
But which State do you pull out of Region VI? The other choice I
considered as to shift OH to Region II, and DE to Region III - but DE has
far more in common with PA than MD, and splitting OH and MI did not make
sense. Besides, it would make Region II an incredible mother-load of
votes.
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of isntitutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
