Presidential primary proposal
www.fred08.com
www.fred08.com
www.fred08.com
Fred Thompson for President
Endorsement posted on January 2, 2008
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.fred08.com
www.fred08.com
www.fred08.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
Two primaries have been completed for the Republicans—the Iowa caucuses and the Wyoming primary. The New Hampshire primary is Tuesday. Mike Huckabee won the largest number of delegates in Iowa and Barack Obama won the largest number of delegates for the Democrats. The mass media played the victories up as if they had just won the nomination.
They have not. The number of delegates won for the nomination was small. Using the Electoral College vote of States as a guideline (It’s more complicated than that but generally an adequate guideline.) Iowa has seven Electoral College votes. New Hampshire has four. Wyoming has only three which is the least number of votes any State can have—based upon one Representative and two Senators.
The race is far from over. The major test will be the February 5, 2007 primaries when 24 States hold a primary including Illinois, New York, and California. Any candidate who withdraws before the February 5th primary, in my opinion, is making a mistake. In fact, it may be that no Republican candidate receives a majority of the delegates in the primaries. And yet, some in the mass media are already declaring that some of the candidates have lost. What nonsense. Yet, some voters may be swayed by that nonsense.
In Iowa only about 10% of the registered Democratic voters participated in the caucuses with even a lower percent for the Republicans. As I said, Iowa has only seven Electoral College votes. Twenty-six States have more Electoral College votes than does Iowa. An additional 3 States have as many Electoral College votes as Iowa. New Hampshire, the next perceived impact State, only has 4 Electoral College votes. An additional 8 States have more Electoral College votes than does New Hampshire. Four more States have four votes as does New Hampshire. Should such a low number of voters from two relatively small States have such an impact? I don’t think so!
Therefore, I suggest this modest proposal to provide some order to the Presidential primaries instead of the present hodgepodge. The present situation consists of a system in which Iowa was contemplating moving its caucuses to December of 2007 so that it would remain the first State to hold a primary and Illinois moved its primary from March to February to help its Senator win the Democratic nomination.
The proposal:
The States and the District of Columbia, which has three Electoral College votes, would be divided into four groups based upon Electoral College votes and compact geographical location so that candidates could campaign in each region for one primary election. Have a drawing to determine the order of the primaries with four primary dates in all—one primary date for each group of four. During the sixteen year cycle of four Presidential elections, each group would be the first group to hold a primary election; each group would also be second, third, and fourth in the sixteen year cycle. An example of election dates could be Group “A” would hold the first primary on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Group “B” would hold the second primary Tuesday two weeks after the first primary. Group “C” would hold the third primary the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. Group “D” would hold the last primary Tuesday two weeks after the third primary. Thus, all primaries would be completed in less than two months with four primary dates. No one State would hold a primary that was separate and distinct from any of the other States in its group.
My proposal for the four groups and the present Electoral College votes for each State in each group is as follows:
Group A
State and Electoral College vote
01) Connecticut >>>>>> 07
02) Indiana >>>>>>>>> 11
03) Maine >>>>>>>>>> 04
04) Massachusetts >>>> 12
05) Michigan >>>>>>> 17
06) New Hampshire >> 04
07) New Jersey >>>>> 15
08) New York >>>>>> 31
09) Ohio >>>>>>>>>> 20
10) Pennsylvania >>>> 21
11) Rhode Island >>>> 04
12) Vermont >>>>>>> 03
Total vote >>>>>>>> 149
Group B
State and Electoral College vote
01) Alabama >>>>>>>>>>> 09
02) Delaware >>>>>>>>>> 03
03) District of Columbia >> 03
04) Florida >>>>>>>>>>> 27
05) Georgia >>>>>>>>>> 15
06) Kentucky >>>>>>>>> 08
07) Maryland >>>>>>>>> 10
08) Mississippi >>>>>>>> 06
09) North Carolina >>>>> 15
10) South Carolina >>>>> 08
11) Tennessee >>>>>>>> 11
12) Virginia >>>>>>>>> 13
13) West Virginia >>>>> 05
Total vote >>>>>>>>>>133
Group C
State and Electoral College vote
01) Alaska >>>>>>>> 03
02) Colorado >>>>>> 09
03) Idaho >>>>>>>> 04
04) Illinois >>>>>>> 21
05) Iowa >>>>>>>> 07
06) Kansas >>>>>> 06
07) Minnesota >>>> 10
08) Missouri >>>>>> 11
09) Montana >>>>>> 03
10) Nebraska >>>>> 05
11) Nevada >>>>>> 05
12) North Dakota >> 03
13) Oregon >>>>>> 07
14) South Dakota >> 03
15) Utah >>>>>>>> 05
16) Washington >>> 11
17) Wisconsin >>>> 10
18) Wyoming >>>> 03
Total vote >>>>>>126
Group D
State and Electoral College vote
01) Arizona >>>>>>> 10
02) Arkansas >>>>>> 06
03) California >>>>> 55
04) Hawaii >>>>>>> 04
05) Louisiana >>>>> 09
06) New Mexico >>> 05
07) Oklahoma >>>>> 07
08) Texas >>>>>>>> 34
Total vote >>>>>>>130
Wouldn’t this be a positive change? No single State would have the unmerited benefit of holding a primary before any other State. Iowa and New Hampshire may not like it but it would be a better process for selecting Presidential candidates than now exists. Candidates could concentrate on one region at a time for four major primary elections. A winner could not be named after one primary section because it is only about ¼th of the total votes needed for nomination. More States would benefit from candidate exposure in each region and candidates wouldn’t have to hop around the country to the Iowa caucus, then the New Hampshire primary, then the Michigan primary, then the South Carolina-Nevada primary, then the Florida primary, then the February 5th primaries that extent from the east coast to the west coast—New York to California.
The present system is almost insanity in its jumbled mess and is not a level playing field. Huckabee may have won in Iowa simply because his home State of Arkansas is due south just below Missouri the intervening State. Obama may have won in Iowa just because he is the Senator from the neighboring State of Illinois. This can be changed by simple Congressional law since the Constitution does not establish the process for electing the President outside of the Electoral College. This, I think, would be a small, easy but major step in reforming the system for nominating the President. It almost has to be better than our present hodgepodge system!
What do you think?
www.fred08.com
www.fred08.com
www.fred08.com
Fred Thompson for President
Endorsement posted on January 2, 2008
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.fred08.com
www.fred08.com
www.fred08.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
Two primaries have been completed for the Republicans—the Iowa caucuses and the Wyoming primary. The New Hampshire primary is Tuesday. Mike Huckabee won the largest number of delegates in Iowa and Barack Obama won the largest number of delegates for the Democrats. The mass media played the victories up as if they had just won the nomination.
They have not. The number of delegates won for the nomination was small. Using the Electoral College vote of States as a guideline (It’s more complicated than that but generally an adequate guideline.) Iowa has seven Electoral College votes. New Hampshire has four. Wyoming has only three which is the least number of votes any State can have—based upon one Representative and two Senators.
The race is far from over. The major test will be the February 5, 2007 primaries when 24 States hold a primary including Illinois, New York, and California. Any candidate who withdraws before the February 5th primary, in my opinion, is making a mistake. In fact, it may be that no Republican candidate receives a majority of the delegates in the primaries. And yet, some in the mass media are already declaring that some of the candidates have lost. What nonsense. Yet, some voters may be swayed by that nonsense.
In Iowa only about 10% of the registered Democratic voters participated in the caucuses with even a lower percent for the Republicans. As I said, Iowa has only seven Electoral College votes. Twenty-six States have more Electoral College votes than does Iowa. An additional 3 States have as many Electoral College votes as Iowa. New Hampshire, the next perceived impact State, only has 4 Electoral College votes. An additional 8 States have more Electoral College votes than does New Hampshire. Four more States have four votes as does New Hampshire. Should such a low number of voters from two relatively small States have such an impact? I don’t think so!
Therefore, I suggest this modest proposal to provide some order to the Presidential primaries instead of the present hodgepodge. The present situation consists of a system in which Iowa was contemplating moving its caucuses to December of 2007 so that it would remain the first State to hold a primary and Illinois moved its primary from March to February to help its Senator win the Democratic nomination.
The proposal:
The States and the District of Columbia, which has three Electoral College votes, would be divided into four groups based upon Electoral College votes and compact geographical location so that candidates could campaign in each region for one primary election. Have a drawing to determine the order of the primaries with four primary dates in all—one primary date for each group of four. During the sixteen year cycle of four Presidential elections, each group would be the first group to hold a primary election; each group would also be second, third, and fourth in the sixteen year cycle. An example of election dates could be Group “A” would hold the first primary on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Group “B” would hold the second primary Tuesday two weeks after the first primary. Group “C” would hold the third primary the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. Group “D” would hold the last primary Tuesday two weeks after the third primary. Thus, all primaries would be completed in less than two months with four primary dates. No one State would hold a primary that was separate and distinct from any of the other States in its group.
My proposal for the four groups and the present Electoral College votes for each State in each group is as follows:
Group A
State and Electoral College vote
01) Connecticut >>>>>> 07
02) Indiana >>>>>>>>> 11
03) Maine >>>>>>>>>> 04
04) Massachusetts >>>> 12
05) Michigan >>>>>>> 17
06) New Hampshire >> 04
07) New Jersey >>>>> 15
08) New York >>>>>> 31
09) Ohio >>>>>>>>>> 20
10) Pennsylvania >>>> 21
11) Rhode Island >>>> 04
12) Vermont >>>>>>> 03
Total vote >>>>>>>> 149
Group B
State and Electoral College vote
01) Alabama >>>>>>>>>>> 09
02) Delaware >>>>>>>>>> 03
03) District of Columbia >> 03
04) Florida >>>>>>>>>>> 27
05) Georgia >>>>>>>>>> 15
06) Kentucky >>>>>>>>> 08
07) Maryland >>>>>>>>> 10
08) Mississippi >>>>>>>> 06
09) North Carolina >>>>> 15
10) South Carolina >>>>> 08
11) Tennessee >>>>>>>> 11
12) Virginia >>>>>>>>> 13
13) West Virginia >>>>> 05
Total vote >>>>>>>>>>133
Group C
State and Electoral College vote
01) Alaska >>>>>>>> 03
02) Colorado >>>>>> 09
03) Idaho >>>>>>>> 04
04) Illinois >>>>>>> 21
05) Iowa >>>>>>>> 07
06) Kansas >>>>>> 06
07) Minnesota >>>> 10
08) Missouri >>>>>> 11
09) Montana >>>>>> 03
10) Nebraska >>>>> 05
11) Nevada >>>>>> 05
12) North Dakota >> 03
13) Oregon >>>>>> 07
14) South Dakota >> 03
15) Utah >>>>>>>> 05
16) Washington >>> 11
17) Wisconsin >>>> 10
18) Wyoming >>>> 03
Total vote >>>>>>126
Group D
State and Electoral College vote
01) Arizona >>>>>>> 10
02) Arkansas >>>>>> 06
03) California >>>>> 55
04) Hawaii >>>>>>> 04
05) Louisiana >>>>> 09
06) New Mexico >>> 05
07) Oklahoma >>>>> 07
08) Texas >>>>>>>> 34
Total vote >>>>>>>130
Wouldn’t this be a positive change? No single State would have the unmerited benefit of holding a primary before any other State. Iowa and New Hampshire may not like it but it would be a better process for selecting Presidential candidates than now exists. Candidates could concentrate on one region at a time for four major primary elections. A winner could not be named after one primary section because it is only about ¼th of the total votes needed for nomination. More States would benefit from candidate exposure in each region and candidates wouldn’t have to hop around the country to the Iowa caucus, then the New Hampshire primary, then the Michigan primary, then the South Carolina-Nevada primary, then the Florida primary, then the February 5th primaries that extent from the east coast to the west coast—New York to California.
The present system is almost insanity in its jumbled mess and is not a level playing field. Huckabee may have won in Iowa simply because his home State of Arkansas is due south just below Missouri the intervening State. Obama may have won in Iowa just because he is the Senator from the neighboring State of Illinois. This can be changed by simple Congressional law since the Constitution does not establish the process for electing the President outside of the Electoral College. This, I think, would be a small, easy but major step in reforming the system for nominating the President. It almost has to be better than our present hodgepodge system!
What do you think?
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 11:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home