> Nick wrote: > But then the primaries are still determined by who as the most money. >
Not really. The way it works today is that you have a bunch of local parties and those local parties determine their local candidate via a local primary vote. These local primary votes aren't really influenced by money; maybe by *the ability* to eventually raise money, by not by money for the primary. The local candidates throw their hat into the national primary and off they go to the national primaries. Right now the money influence for local and national primaries works out this way: the local and national party will not necessarily vote for who they think is the best candidate, but who they think can raise the most money in a national election because that's what makes them competitive. By eliminating that factor you return the local primaries back to who has the best ideas and/or who is the best salesman. Because in a national run-off election with 50 debates, only the best will survive, and money will be off the table. Plus every vote will count and no minority will be left out (such as North Dakota or Maine are today). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204131 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
