Greta Van Susteren of Fox News interviews Rick Santorum here. The interview is six minutes and 15 seconds long. At four minutes into the interview, Van Susteren expressed the thought that it is not fair for four particular states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) to always be the only states permitted to go first in the major party delegate selection process. She repeatedly presses Santorum to defend that policy.
One of the selling points of Americans Elect is that the Americans Elect presidential nomination process does not arbitrarily single out the voters of four particular states and give them a preference in the process. Thanks to Political Wire for the link to the interview.
Santorum’s claim of a conspiracy in favor of the front runners is specious. He has two full months to wow the public and become a front runner himself. Doesn’t he feel confident he can do that?
The gap between the time we will know who the top two are in the presidential race (probably March to November) will be bigger than the gap in CA between its primary and general election (June to Nov). Boring!
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Twitter: wjkno1
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Pingback: Greta Van Susteren Says Letting Four Particular States Hold Earliest Delegate Selection Process Isn’t Fair | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Wrong adjective by GVS —
not S-A-N-E etc.
—
P.R. and App.V. – to END the EVIL insanity in U.S.A. politics.
California could easily convert its presidential primary into a direct primary. Its constitution already says that California may not deny the party the opportunity to have the top vote-getter appear on the general election ballot.
It is pretty silly to suggest that the California legislature would pass a law that says a party had to have its 3rd place finisher appear on the ballot, and the party would then sue based on the constitution that they had the right to have the 1st place finisher appear on the ballot.
If California statutes provided that 1st place finisher would appear on the general election ballot, then a party would have no grounds for legal action.
California could let each California party designate which primary elections in other states are to be used in determining the winner. California could apply a discount based on how much earlier the primary was held, perhaps 5% per week.
If the so-called national party nominee was different, he could run as an independent or write-in candidate like William Howard Taft did in 1912.
Can New Hampshire and South Carolina move their primaries up without getting caught by the MOVE act that requires ballots in federal elections to be sent out 45 days early, and the VRA that requires that States file for preclearance under Section 5 60 days in advance in the change of the election procedure?
How much ABSOLUTE JUNK trivia is connected with the Prez nomination stuff — going back to 1788 ???
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
How many regimes manage to survive by having the chief executive officer be elected by ALL of the Electors-Voters in the area involved — nation, State, locality ???