The problem with that is that it means only candidates funded well enough to run 50-state campaigns, or at least very large-scale ones, will bother to run. You lose the opportunity for candidates with relatively low initial funding levels but high popularity (given the opportunity to get their message out) to demonstrate it.

Also, I've heard the argument that because Iowa and NH are always the first states, their voters are more informed and force the candidates to actually make decent arguments for their support rather than just shitty standardized electioneering.
bBass | Homepage | 08.12.07 - 9:57 pm | #

"...force the candidates to actually make decent arguments for their support..."

I wish, but I'm still hearing only shitty standardized electioneering.

Leonardo, I like the "radical" idea. Seems like something well within the authority of the feds to require also, despite the states' wishes (i.e. it's a federal election).
Nate | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 12:29 pm | #

Just as a clarification, it's not a Federal election.
State primaries are simply electing delegates to the respective conventions. The parties honestly don't really have to select their delegates this way - the Libertarian Party for one doesn't.
Besides that, I for one don't want to give the Fed any more power than it already has. The Constitution doesn't make any mention of Federally set nominating processes. Therefore, the Federal gov doesn't have the right to set them.
Ultimately, if you as a Republican or Democrat (which at least in theory you should be in order to vote in a primary, even in a state that doesn't require party registration) don't like how things are done, get it changed.
Displaced New Orleanian | 08.13.07 - 4:06 pm | #