hey sound, some good points there. the problem i see, and a lot of this is due to the media so we need some reform there as well, is that the media, and subsequently, a majority of the electorate get stuck on issues that don’t really matter, like some negative things one person (wright) might have said, or one little mess up (the howard dean scream) and it becomes this huge big deal and something people consider when they vote. unfortunately a lot of people don’t actually know a lot about where the candidates actually stand on all of the important issues you brought up.
i think if there were a system that required candidates to visit places around the country, thereby addressing farms in one place, coal in another, war in another, etc, the voters would still get to learn about the candidates and issues that mattered closer to home. i think the main problem is that as the whole race is drawn out over time, the imporant issues aren’t what’s being talked about, and people vote based on what’s happening in the media, what the state a week before them did, etc. i just think that having a primary system, where the early states have a lot of sway, isn’t really fair. it makes it seem as if those states are more important because they end up being more influential. why should NH matter more than MT or SD? The fact that these states rarely even get to vote in a primary is kinda screwed up, don’t you think? I’ve been lucky to always live in an early voting state, NY, NH, CA, but I think I’d be upset if I never got the opportunity, and I think it’s kind of ridiculous to say that the people have chosen that candidate when thousands of people don’t even get to have their vote counted!