Maybe its just me...

[matratzac]

Is anyone else a little clueless as to why states have conventions, caucuses, primaries, etc? it just seems like it woudl be smarter to have a standard and have each state do the same thing... it seems like it would be more fair that way.

have each one a caucus. or have each one a primary. but for f's sake don't change them all around because each one may benefit certain candidates more/less. am i right?

[mrd]

I wonder if that decision isn't made by the involved political parties?

[Elwar]

That's what we're fighting for though isn't it? States rights and all...let each state have their own laws and systems so that the marketplace of ideas eventually brings forth the successes.

The whole "party" system is screwed up anyway.

[Heather in WI]

That's what we're fighting for though isn't it? States rights and all...let each state have their own laws and systems so that the marketplace of ideas eventually brings forth the successes.


+1

[hueylong]

Political party in each state gets to decide how they do it withing the overall rules of the national party.

[matratzac]

That's what we're fighting for though isn't it? States rights and all...let each state have their own laws and systems so that the marketplace of ideas eventually brings forth the successes.

The whole "party" system is screwed up anyway.

true. can't argue with that

[J Free]

Is anyone else a little clueless as to why states have conventions, caucuses, primaries, etc? it just seems like it woudl be smarter to have a standard and have each state do the same thing... it seems like it would be more fair that way.

Sure. If you believe that the federal government should have the authority to decide how everything is done from DC and if you believe that the states are nothing more than the funders of college-level sports so that we can sit on the sidelines, cheer State U, and pretend that our state government serves some function.

Of course, if you believe that, then I have to ask why you are a Ron Paul supporter.

[tomveil]

Is anyone else a little clueless as to why states have conventions, caucuses, primaries, etc? it just seems like it woudl be smarter to have a standard and have each state do the same thing... it seems like it would be more fair that way.

have each one a caucus. or have each one a primary. but for f's sake don't change them all around because each one may benefit certain candidates more/less. am i right?

Because they want your vote to count as little as possible.

Here in Washington, we have a primary AND a caucus! Nobody that I've talked to even KNEW we had a caucus as well as the primary.

Crazy systems.

[parke]

+1

+2

[Max_in_WA]

That's what we're fighting for though isn't it? States rights and all...let each state have their own laws and systems so that the marketplace of ideas eventually brings forth the successes.


This is true -- there are significant state's rights issues involved in the RP campaign. He has not advocated eliminating the federal government however -- simply restricting it to its proper role. There are issues that ought to be decided at the state level, and others at the federal level. Clearly, the federal gov't has a valid interest in ensuring that its elections are fair and reasonably conducted. The feds should control federal elections -- the states should control state elections. Just as it would be unfair for the fed to stick its nose into state business, the states shouldn't interfere with the fed's interest in a fair federal election.

This whole caucus and delegate thing is BS from a time when travel and communication was very hard. Way back when, it made sense to pick one person to make a trip of a week or two to a state convention, rather than have everyone drop everything for it. Anymore, it's just obviously a tool of the power brokers to keep power. Besides that, with modern travel capabilities and electronic means of communication -- it really isn't necessary to have these confusing systems.

With respect to federal candidates, people should just vote, the vote be fairly tabulated, and whoever won be the winner. None of this BS about delegates switching their vote later, or you don't vote for your candidate - you vote for a delegate you think will vote for your candidate. That's just ridiculous. In essence, it allows a state with processes that are corrupt to affect the decision. If the state wants to choose its own govt by that method -- well have at it. But they shouldn't be allowed to pollute the elections we all participate in and are affected by.

[BravoSix]

This is true -- there are significant state's rights issues involved in the RP campaign. He has not advocated eliminating the federal government however -- simply restricting it to its proper role. There are issues that ought to be decided at the state level, and others at the federal level. Clearly, the federal gov't has a valid interest in ensuring that its elections are fair and reasonably conducted. The feds should control federal elections -- the states should control state elections. Just as it would be unfair for the fed to stick its nose into state business, the states shouldn't interfere with the fed's interest in a fair federal election.

This whole caucus and delegate thing is BS from a time when travel and communication was very hard. Way back when, it made sense to pick one person to make a trip of a week or two to a state convention, rather than have everyone drop everything for it. Anymore, it's just obviously a tool of the power brokers to keep power. Besides that, with modern travel capabilities and electronic means of communication -- it really isn't necessary to have these confusing systems.

With respect to federal candidates, people should just vote, the vote be fairly tabulated, and whoever won be the winner. None of this BS about delegates switching their vote later, or you don't vote for your candidate - you vote for a delegate you think will vote for your candidate. That's just ridiculous. In essence, it allows a state with processes that are corrupt to affect the decision. If the state wants to choose its own govt by that method -- well have at it. But they shouldn't be allowed to pollute the elections we all participate in and are affected by.


Excellent response.

QFT.

[tomveil]

This is true -- there are significant state's rights issues involved in the RP campaign. He has not advocated eliminating the federal government however -- simply restricting it to its proper role. There are issues that ought to be decided at the state level, and others at the federal level. Clearly, the federal gov't has a valid interest in ensuring that its elections are fair and reasonably conducted. The feds should control federal elections -- the states should control state elections. Just as it would be unfair for the fed to stick its nose into state business, the states shouldn't interfere with the fed's interest in a fair federal election.

This whole caucus and delegate thing is BS from a time when travel and communication was very hard. Way back when, it made sense to pick one person to make a trip of a week or two to a state convention, rather than have everyone drop everything for it. Anymore, it's just obviously a tool of the power brokers to keep power. Besides that, with modern travel capabilities and electronic means of communication -- it really isn't necessary to have these confusing systems.

With respect to federal candidates, people should just vote, the vote be fairly tabulated, and whoever won be the winner. None of this BS about delegates switching their vote later, or you don't vote for your candidate - you vote for a delegate you think will vote for your candidate. That's just ridiculous. In essence, it allows a state with processes that are corrupt to affect the decision. If the state wants to choose its own govt by that method -- well have at it. But they shouldn't be allowed to pollute the elections we all participate in and are affected by.

Very true. Being from WA, you probably understand exactly what's going on here too.

[J Free]

>The feds should control federal elections -- the states should control state elections.

This isn't a federal election. It is a party nomination election.

[tomveil]

>The feds should control federal elections -- the states should control state elections.

This isn't a federal election. It is a party nomination election.

You'll have a hard time convincing me of that ;)

[bluefish]

One good thing about the Ron Paul Revolution is that it has made people more aware of how our government works and Why it is in the shape it is in now.

[Max_in_WA]

Very true. Being from WA, you probably understand exactly what's going on here too.

I do, and it really bothers me. The caucus system is lame enough on its own. That's half the delegates. The other half by vote is OK, except my county is 100% mail in ballot, which makes it impossible to get a feeling for whether the counting is fair (no way to compare exit poll data to official results). There is no way to know when the campaign ought to end because people will send in ballots over a range of dates. And of course, you never really know if the vote even arrives at its destination because the mail isn't perfect -- it's very good, but sometimes things do go awry.

[Highmesa]

This is true -- there are significant state's rights issues involved in the RP campaign. He has not advocated eliminating the federal government however -- simply restricting it to its proper role. There are issues that ought to be decided at the state level, and others at the federal level. Clearly, the federal gov't has a valid interest in ensuring that its elections are fair and reasonably conducted. The feds should control federal elections -- the states should control state elections. Just as it would be unfair for the fed to stick its nose into state business, the states shouldn't interfere with the fed's interest in a fair federal election.

This whole caucus and delegate thing is BS from a time when travel and communication was very hard. Way back when, it made sense to pick one person to make a trip of a week or two to a state convention, rather than have everyone drop everything for it. Anymore, it's just obviously a tool of the power brokers to keep power. Besides that, with modern travel capabilities and electronic means of communication -- it really isn't necessary to have these confusing systems.

With respect to federal candidates, people should just vote, the vote be fairly tabulated, and whoever won be the winner. None of this BS about delegates switching their vote later, or you don't vote for your candidate - you vote for a delegate you think will vote for your candidate. That's just ridiculous. In essence, it allows a state with processes that are corrupt to affect the decision. If the state wants to choose its own govt by that method -- well have at it. But they shouldn't be allowed to pollute the elections we all participate in and are affected by.

I disagree. The states elect the president, not the people. That is why we have the whole electoral college. It's a smart and well designed system.

It is the resposibility of each state, not the federal government to determine their voting process and to insure it is fair. If a state has a shoddy system and support the wrong person, it falls on them.

This system (along with the senate) insures that there is sufficient representation for the smaller states. If we had a direct popular vote, the big states like CA, TX, and NY would always select the president, and we might as well do away with the states at that point.

We are fighting against the fedral takeover of almost everything in our lives and the voting process is part of that.

[tomveil]

I disagree. The states elect the president, not the people. That is why we have the whole electoral college. It's a smart and well designed system.

It is the resposibility of each state, not the federal government to determine their voting process and to insure it is fair. If a state has a shoddy system and support the wrong person, it falls on them.

This system (along with the senate) insures that there is sufficient representation for the smaller states. If we had a direct popular vote, the big states like CA, TX, and NY would always select the president, and we might as well do away with the states at that point.

We are fighting against the fedral takeover of almost everything in our lives and the voting process is part of that.

I think he's talking about streamlining the state primary process, not going to an overall popular vote. I've lived in Washington my whole life and didn't know about the caucus that's 49% of the voting! WTF!

[tomveil]

I do, and it really bothers me. The caucus system is lame enough on its own. That's half the delegates. The other half by vote is OK, except my county is 100% mail in ballot, which makes it impossible to get a feeling for whether the counting is fair (no way to compare exit poll data to official results). There is no way to know when the campaign ought to end because people will send in ballots over a range of dates. And of course, you never really know if the vote even arrives at its destination because the mail isn't perfect -- it's very good, but sometimes things do go awry.

Yeah, we're mail-in here too. So much for oversight!

[nike]

If you look at the amendments to the constitution, you will find that a majority of the amendments have to do with elections and voting; in every case taking authority away from the states and putting it under federal control.

[Max_in_WA]

>The feds should control federal elections -- the states should control state elections.

This isn't a federal election. It is a party nomination election.

It is a party nomination for a federal election. The purpose of the federal government to some extent, is to ensure that the states do not take advantage of each other. The fact is, the Wyoming vote effects people in every other state, not just Wyoming. Thus it is violation of the other states' rights if the Wyoming election (or any other state for that matter) is unfair.

This is similar to the classic nuisance situation. If you have a neighbor who burns big piles of junk all day, every day, week in and week out, and the smoke from that fire drifts onto your property and makes it impossible for you to enjoy your property, you can sue and the courts will tell him to stop. That's because his property rights end where yours begin.

Libertarianism is not about anarchy -- it is about the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you aren't negatively impacting the freedom of others to do the same. Allowing states to affect the federal elections by corrupt processes, affects not only those in that state, but every citizen bound by the federal election.

Wyoming's rights end where mine begin -- and vice versa. I think this is perfectly consistent with a Ron Paul philosophy. I think allowing others to interfere in others' rights is not.

I believe I have a right to a fair federal election, which includes a fair party nomination process. If the nomination process is not fair, then we may as well not have elections at all. How often have we cringed at news of a "democratic" election in a totalitarian state where voters had a choice of one? How different is a system where we have but two pre-selected, party-vetted candidates? Not much in my book.

[tomveil]

It is a party nomination for a federal election. The purpose of the federal government to some extent, is to ensure that the states do not take advantage of each other. The fact is, the Wyoming vote effects people in every other state, not just Wyoming. Thus it is violation of the other states' rights if the Wyoming election (or any other state for that matter) is unfair.

This is similar to the classic nuisance situation. If you have a neighbor who burns big piles of junk all day, every day, week in and week out, and the smoke from that fire drifts onto your property and makes it impossible for you to enjoy your property, you can sue and the courts will tell him to stop. That's because his property rights end where yours begin.

Libertarianism is not about anarchy -- it is about the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you aren't negatively impacting the freedom of others to do the same. Allowing states to affect the federal elections by corrupt processes, affects not only those in that state, but every citizen bound by the federal election.

Wyoming's rights end where mine begin -- and vice versa. I think this is perfectly consistent with a Ron Paul philosophy. I think allowing others to interfere in others' rights is not.

I believe I have a right to a fair federal election, which includes a fair party nomination process. If the nomination process is not fair, then we may as well not have elections at all. How often have we cringed at news of a "democratic" election in a totalitarian state where you had a choice of one? How different is a system where we have but two pre-selected, party-vetted candidates? Not much in my book.

Not sure why you quoted me, since I agree with what you're saying. Thanks, though :)

A streamlined state system (Either caucus or primary) would be preferable to the current system. Imagine you just moved to a new state. How would you even know what the system was?

Either way, the run-off voting is pretty awful. Voting for anybody but who you want to win seems to undermine the whole process.

[Arramond]

I'm from the UK and I thought we had the most confusing, stupid and bias voting system ever. After trying to understand what the hell is going on in Wyoming, I stand corrected.

[Max_in_WA]

It is the resposibility of each state, not the federal government to determine their voting process and to insure it is fair. If a state has a shoddy system and support the wrong person, it falls on them.

I'm not really discussing the electoral college. You will agree that the vote in each state affects the electoral delegates? I'm suggesting that corrupt voting in one state is not merely a state issue when that vote is in a federal election.

I'm hip to state's rights, truly, but there are some functions that the states are not designed to handle. I would suggest that federal elections is one such issue, because if a state has a shoddy system, the problems caused by that system are not limited to that state -- they effect every American when a federal election is involved.

It is not a libertarian principle to allow anyone to do anything no matter how it negatively impacts other people.

[Max_in_WA]

Not sure why you quoted me

Sorry about that! :) I tidied that up.

[Goldwater Conservative]

The national parties could establish a standard and penalize the states which diverged by stripping them of some delegates. I think they should do that, requiring that delegates be awarded in proportion to a straightforward popular vote in each state.

[Max_in_WA]

The national parties could establish a standard and penalize the states which diverged by stripping them of some delegates. I think they should do that, requiring that delegates be awarded in proportion to a straightforward popular vote in each state.

That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition.

[J Free]

Libertarianism is not about anarchy -- it is about the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you aren't negatively impacting the freedom of others to do the same. Allowing states to affect the federal elections by corrupt processes, affects not only those in that state, but every citizen bound by the federal election.

Wyoming's rights end where mine begin -- and vice versa. I think this is perfectly consistent with a Ron Paul philosophy. I think allowing others to interfere in others' rights is not.

I believe I have a right to a fair federal election, which includes a fair party nomination process. If the nomination process is not fair, then we may as well not have elections at all. How often have we cringed at news of a "democratic" election in a totalitarian state where voters had a choice of one? How different is a system where we have but two pre-selected, party-vetted candidates? Not much in my book.

First, this election is not about Libertarianism. WY is one of the most libertarian states in the US -- and they DESPISE the federal government -- which is not surprising since the feds illegally own 45% of the state and are the biggest monopoly sellers of water in that state and various jerks from Congress ensure that small cut-off towns in Wyoming don't even get federal-owned roads maintained in the winter and the feds don't even prevent fire-hazards on fed-owned land.

Second, a fair federal election has NOTHING to do with party nominations. But the more people insist that the feds SHOULD control things, then the more the two national-level parties WILL control things -- for their benefit. You may not like the way the Wyoming GOP runs its business - but your intolerance for differences elsewhere is precisely why the federal government has been creeping into everything.

[tomveil]

First, this election is not about Libertarianism. WY is one of the most libertarian states in the US -- and they DESPISE the federal government -- which is not surprising since the feds illegally own 45% of the state and are the biggest monopoly sellers of water in that state and various jerks from Congress ensure that small cut-off towns in Wyoming don't even get federal-owned roads maintained in the winter and the feds don't even prevent fire-hazards on fed-owned land.

Second, a fair federal election has NOTHING to do with party nominations. But the more people insist that the feds SHOULD control things, then the more the two national-level parties WILL control things -- for their benefit. You may not like the way the Wyoming GOP runs its business - but your intolerance for differences elsewhere is precisely why the federal government has been creeping into everything.

OK, but we're not talking about controlling (at least I'm not). We're talking about a streamlined process to ensure that the vote is transparent and fair.

[mconder]

I think the caucus process definitely helps the party to remain closed to outsiders or those with differences of opinion. I think a popular vote would be more fair.

[Corydoras]

Larry Sabato, the media's favorite political scientist on the topic of electoral politics, says

It all goes back to the fact that our founding fathers did not believe in mass democracy, and they did not support the idea of political parties

This is a very good article about how messy the system is:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/08/presidential_primary/

[J Free]

The vote was transparent and open. The rules were known ahead of time. And from what I can tell, these sorts of rules are exactly how both parties conduct their convention/selection business all the time.

If we have a brokered GOP convention; then the vote/transfer process will work the same. The lowest vote total will get knocked out and those folks will have to choose someone else. It is similar to how the Dem caucus worked in Iowa.

[tomveil]

The vote was transparent and open. The rules were known ahead of time. And from what I can tell, these sorts of rules are exactly how both parties conduct their convention/selection business all the time.

If we have a brokered GOP convention; then the vote/transfer process will work the same. The lowest vote total will get knocked out and those folks will have to choose someone else. It is similar to how the Dem caucus worked in Iowa.

My vote here in Washington isn't. New voters moving to new states find themselves with new rules that they learn about after the fact, because it's in the best interest of the people in power to make sure that they don't find out (unless they're committed to their man)

It's disgusting.

[J Free]

I think the caucus process definitely helps the party to remain closed to outsiders or those with differences of opinion. I think a popular vote would be more fair.

The caucus process rewards those who are organized and who are willing to help others organize; those who understand the rules (which are public); those who are willing to speak up in public; and those who focus on the details.

Caucuses are how the evangelicals took over parts of the GOP in the early 80's. A "popular vote" does nothing because it doesn't DEMAND anything in return. No commitment to deliver on something (eg GOTV efforts in a precinct, a neighborhood). A total anonymity that doesn't even allow people to talk about WHY they are voting one way or the other.

Primaries or popular vote lead only to the notion that the winner of American Idol is really an extremely talented and capable singer.

[Max_in_WA]

First, this election is not about Libertarianism. WY is one of the most libertarian states in the US -- and they DESPISE the federal government ....

Well, I made the comments about libertarianism because there is a difference between being a libertarian and a sessesionist. There may be overlap, but what I was hearing was in the previous comments was that the federal government should have no role in its own elections and we should not complain about irregularities in various states.

I take issue with that notion because the federal government effects all Americans. Just as I would not expect Washington state to set policy for Wyoming, I think WY should keep out of WA. By having a system that does not allow participation by the electorate in the primary process, WY has an effect on my choice for president. That does not uphold any libertarian principle I can think of, though it may be attractive to sessionists.


Second, a fair federal election has NOTHING to do with party nominations. But the more people insist that the feds SHOULD control things, then the more the two national-level parties WILL control things -- for their benefit. You may not like the way the Wyoming GOP runs its business - but your intolerance for differences elsewhere is precisely why the federal government has been creeping into everything.

The fact that the federal gov't has crept into areas it doesn't belong, is not a valid reason for keeping it out of the areas in which its actions would be appropriate. The fact is, the nomination process is corrupt and works against candidates like Ron Paul. Protecting the status quo ensures we have only more of the same.

From a different thread, look at this process:



The Wyoming county conventions were NOT open to Republican voters. Eligible delegates consisted of only two groups: Republican party officials who were elected in 2006; and delegates who were appointed (by established precinct organizations) to fill empty delegate seats.

There was little chance for new party activists to participate in this process, only old-timers made the choice. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018271.html.

Ron Paul's opportunity to be given a fair chance at election are reduced by this policy favoring the status quo. This directly effects my rights in the general election -- what if Ron Paul was 2 delegates short of being on the Ballot? WY's few delegates could well have turned the tide in such a situation. If this happened, a corrupt process in a foreign state would have robbed me of my chance to vote for him in the general election. This quite clearly the sort of situation in which the feds ought to lay down some rules for its own elections. If WY wants to choose its own state reps by rolling dice or divining rod, that's fine, but when their processes affect me negatively, it raises my libertarian hackles.

[J Free]

My vote here in Washington isn't. New voters moving to new states find themselves with new rules that they learn about after the fact, because it's in the best interest of the people in power to make sure that they don't find out (unless they're committed to their man) It's disgusting.

First, do not overestimate the "commitment" of any of these folks to Romney the man. For whatever reason, that neither you nor I know, that is the candidate they are willing to publicly support at this time. In truth, the real issue of importance long-term is whether those folks are seriously interested in local grassroots power or whether they are just tools of a national party/idea. Because the former are allies of any local RP supporters who choose to get involved in local politics - and the latter may be enemies even if they happen to agree on RP for President 2008.

There is more to delegates/convention/parties than national issues relating to a specific Presidential race.

Second, if you are moving to a new state; then it is up to you to LEARN the rules. Not to assume that everything should be the same everywhere and that it is someone's else fault if it's not.

[tomveil]

Second, if you are moving to a new state; then it is up to you to LEARN the rules. Not to assume that everything should be the same everywhere and that it is someone's else fault if it's not.

And that's why we have 50% turnout ;)

[J Free]

but what I was hearing was in the previous comments was that the federal government should have no role in its own elections and we should not complain about irregularities in various states.

The federal government has every right and obligation to ensure that INDIVIDUAL constitutional rights are upheld on election day. They do not have any right to ensure that parties nominate Candidate A vs Candidate B by creating some bogus "standard" process and some spurious new "right" that you think you have to have a full ballot of choices that you like.

Let me assure you that if there were some national standard; then Ron Paul would not even be in the race right now because they would have ensured that there was some standard in place to exclude him.

My point here is to pay attention to your own state and your own county and your own precinct. Because the more you pay attention somewhere else, the less attention you are paying to something you can actually affect. Unless getting your hackles raised is the whole point for you.

[J Free]

And that's why we have 50% turnout ;)

Voter turnout was 80%+ in the 19th century when rules were wildly local and national party organizations were almost non-existent.

That doesn't really mean much either. Though I do suspect that the more control/power people have over little things - like being able to conduct an election in their town according to their own rules - the more jealous they become of that power/control - and the more involved they get.

[MusoSpuso]

First, this election is not about Libertarianism. WY is one of the most libertarian states in the US -- and they DESPISE the federal government -- which is not surprising since the feds illegally own 45% of the state and are the biggest monopoly sellers of water in that state and various jerks from Congress ensure that small cut-off towns in Wyoming don't even get federal-owned roads maintained in the winter and the feds don't even prevent fire-hazards on fed-owned land.

Second, a fair federal election has NOTHING to do with party nominations. But the more people insist that the feds SHOULD control things, then the more the two national-level parties WILL control things -- for their benefit. You may not like the way the Wyoming GOP runs its business - but your intolerance for differences elsewhere is precisely why the federal government has been creeping into everything.

The fact that WY just chose Romney and Hunter pretty much blows your assertions about the people there out of the water. If they're so much against federal control why did they not vote for Ron Paul?????

[Paul10]

....

[tomveil]

The fact that WY just chose Romney and Hunter pretty much blows your assertions about the people there out of the water. If they're so much against federal control why did they not vote for Ron Paul?????

The people didn't get to vote.

[Max_in_WA]

.... They do not have any right to ensure that parties nominate Candidate A vs Candidate B by creating some bogus "standard" process and some spurious new "right" that you think you have to have a full ballot of choices that you like......

You're touching on some comments others have made -- albeit indirectly -- about the parties being private organizations with the right to choose their candidates the way they want.

I think that would be fine IF there were methods for third parties to actually get on the ballots. You've heard Ron Paul complain about how difficult it is just to get on the ballot in some states if you are a 3d party candidate.

So we have a situation where the parties get the benefit of being private organizations given a virtual monopoly on our election system. I don't really see that as fair. If they want to be monopolies, they need some regulation. Otherwise we get what we've been getting. If the parties don't want to be regulated, then it must be easier for third parties to get on the ballot.

Something has to give, because this two party monopoly just isn't working.

[Max_in_WA]

Voter turnout was 80%+ in the 19th century when rules were wildly local and national party organizations were almost non-existent......

Clearly, people are fed up with the "no choice" they have between dumb and dumber. I don't think it's pure laziness that keeps people away -- I know many people who are smart but totally apathetic because time and time again, our nomination process gives a "Bush v. Kerry" type race.

This is a symptom as I mentioned earlier, of the parties having near monopoly control over the ballots, and the incredible level of 3d party exclusion. If we had a 5 way race, you'd probably get a lot more turnout, real discussion of ideas, and a better result overall.

As it is, we get big spender D for a while, then big spender R for a while, and so on with no real change ever, just further consolidation of power. If the parties want to remain monopolies, then primary reform is in order. If they don't want to reform, then their stranglehold on ballots should be released so we can to some real debate in this country.

[Kalitechne]

That's what we're fighting for though isn't it? States rights and all...let each state have their own laws and systems so that the marketplace of ideas eventually brings forth the successes.

The whole "party" system is screwed up anyway.

This would be true, in my opinion, only if the consequences remained in a particular state, but here there are consequences for the entire country. Shouldn't the selection of the federal government be more uniform? Meaning....a state could probably choose whatever selection process it wants for state government, but I really think primaries should be the standard for all states here because what we're really talking about is the shaping of the federal government. Besides, primaries are more democratic and don't have the same factor of peer pressure as caususes do. In a way, caucuses are like the political equivalent of gang confrontations.

[J Free]

The fact that WY just chose Romney and Hunter pretty much blows your assertions about the people there out of the water. If they're so much against federal control why did they not vote for Ron Paul?????

Why did Ron Paul pull out of attending the Presidential Forum there in September - with the precinct captains who actually voted today? Hunter, Thompson, and Brownback attended. Romney has been seriously active (with the help of the significant Mormon population).