The current system of primaries and caucuses is a bizarre historical accident.

Among other inequities, it gives a few, unrepresentative small states (Iowa, NH, SC) hugely outsized influence in picking the next Presidential candidates, while many states usually have almost no influence.

Question: Should we scrap the current system in favor of a lottery-ordered model like the Fair Primary Proposal (http://www.ellipticalresearch.com/fa...roposal.html)?

We should make the political parties pay for their primaries. I'm tired of the taxpayers subsidizing their selection process.

And since I don't belong to any political party, I really don't care how they do it; just as long as the taxpayers aren't involved.

The whole electoral system is laughable, but no one is going to change it.

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

Election day April 15th, no political crap mentioned till 90 days before that date.

The primaries and caucuses for all 50 states should be split - randomly - among the first three Tuesdays in June. Each parties' convention can take place during the fourth week (on separate days). Thus, campaigning would only take place during a 4-month stretch. Finally, I agree that each party should pay for its own primary or caucus. Let's keep it simple and short!

__________________
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
-- Author Unknown

Huh. No "other" option. Trying to shoehorn people into limited options are we?

Persoanlly I'd like to see a system where the exact order varies however smaller states should get to go first. Otherwise the election process becomes all about the big states from start to finish.

Still though I would support some reform. And the posted plan would be better at least.

Since political parties are private entities, reform is up to them and not the government.