Iowa, New Hampshire, the polling says, who cares, why do these two mostly backward rural, in the middle of myth and pastoral no where, get to choose the president for all the rest of us? We need a better way to vet, challenge and thumbs up or down our candidates. With just two parties and a couple of states doing this all we get is, you know what were going to get, just what we've been getting, more Clintons and Bushs.
Here's where I'm supposed to give my better idea of how to do this in a more representative, and who knows a more open, way. I don't have a clue, how could I? This primary fraud is all I have ever known, I suppose the primary system was an upgrade from the famous smoke filled back rooms of political machine legend, but, I'm not so sure, it seems we're getting spoon fed the same old corporacracy vetted, candidates with accumulated dollars being the closest thing to a counted anything.
What would we do with a more representative election system, the same people who learn the rules and use them to their advantage now would still be there and would still find a way to tilt whatever new system came about to their advantage.
Maybe returning more power back to the conventions, have more politicking going on there, but out in the open would help open this game up some, though, it's been tried, and like i have already referenced, the deals all got made in the back rooms.
Still, getting a conversation started about this, even for a little while might make what we have seem a little better, or better yet, maybe some new idea would get born.