| Jimbo1337 said: Ahhh I see. Nothing that I said was directed at padib in any way. I was more or less just speaking my mind in a general sense. I completely agree that it is rather frustrating that states like Iowa and New Hampshire get to eliminate so many potential candidates. I am in favor of a bound proportional delegate system in which the candidate that has the most delegates by the end is the nominee of that given party. This ensures that each state gets to vote. Poor California |
oh ok.
Interesting idea, though I don't know if that would be enough to keep candidates in who did poorly in some states that would do well in others, since it takes a lot of money to run and those that do porly early have a harder time getting donors to keep giving.
One idea that I've hears is to make it more regional, so candidates can focus on one part of the country at a time, another thing I've heard is to make the process shorter so there aren't months between the first and last states voting.
