Thought Experiment: Politics
Thought experiment. I know there's no way to keep the media from reporting exit polls for a series of contests lasting several months, but…
What if we didn't get the primary results until all the primaries were over (as with the real election)? It could either be because we move all of the primaries to one day, or we simply hold the results until after the last primary (this year, South Dakota on 3 June). We'd have the difference that the campaigns would actually be "who do we want to be the candidate?" rather than "why is this candidate still hanging on?" And we'd lose the sniping and scheming over which delegates have already been won or pledged or bought or sold; the candidates would either have 50% less to say, or they'd be forced to talk about issues more.
Leaving aside my prejudice against taxpayer-funded primaries at all, I think the whole primary process would be improved if we didn't know how California, or New York—or for that matter the massively important (though microscopically small) Iowa and New Hampshire—had voted until everyone had a chance to have a say.
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ianrandalstrock) wrote,
