- Contact
- News Resources
- Favorite Blogs
- About
- Comment Policy
- Mark Levin
- Guest Commentary!
- Task: A Constitutional Crisis or a Fiscal Crisis?
- Task: A Nation United by A Constitution and Divided by A Supreme Court
- Results Talk; Obama Walks
- Darren Davis: Gun Ownership and Women: What the Media Won’t Tell You
- Iraq-A Postmortem Commentary by task
- THE BOY WHO WOULD BE KING by Task
- -Patty Mofield Jones: Opinions Are Like A**holes
- Task: A Last Chance For The Republican Party
- Bone Pickin’s by Rshill7
- Now and Then by Rshill7
- Taking Sides…Us and Them by Rshill7
- Sending Messages by Rshill7
- Jen’s Book Reviews
Jen Kuznicki
There is a simple solution to the primary problem — get rid of the primary just have a general election with the option for candidates in the general to donate a percentage (50%?) of their votes to another candidate with the person with the most votes winning, in exchange for the donator dropping out.
Candidates under such a system would likely be more congenial with those close to their own views, there would be less wasted money on primary campaigns, folks disenchanted with the big parties (like libertarians) whose vote rarely counts would have a voice.
This is an interesting idea. Letting a candidate donate votes could lead to tricks like Huck and McCain played on Romney (in South Carolina, mapbe). In Kansas and some other states, the opposition party like maybe the Democrats run ringers like Orman as independents. Some parties have even been known to run a Libertarian who's not even libertarian to siphon votes away from the Republican if they happen to be liberal and disliked by the conservatives. It also appears that in some states, factions run many candidates to help the incumbent as in the case of Lindsay Graham.
The Louisiana election without a primary can be interesting. Does the winner have to get 50% of the vote there?