Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
How about a constitutional amendment?
While we're waiting the next three months for the Republican Convention to nominate the person we know is going to be the nominee, why not talk about amending the Constitution so that in the future this nominating process won't be so elongated and so strangely early in the calendar year? It used to be case that the New Hampshire wasn't even until some time in April. Over the past 40 years, the other states -- not named New Hampshire -- decided that they wanted to be more influential to the nomination process and started competing to move their primaries earlier in the year. And so New Hampshire also kept on moving ITS primary earlier. Now it votes in the first week of the whole year. It's ridiculous.
Ask Congress to propose and the states to ratify an amendment that provides for a primary/caucus schedule that does not begin until April, like before, and which says that only states with 1 or 2 seats in the House can hold the events in April. Then the medium-size states, with 3 to 10 seats in the House, are allowed to hold primaries or caucuses in May (too bad, Iowa). Then all of the largest states have to wait until June.
Make sense?
@Matthew:
Merely private clubs? There aren't any state laws -- adopted by the state legislature -- that dictate a presidential primary date?
@Paladin:
Your answer would be correct if the states were only self-interested, rather than interested in adopting a policy that would be best for the whole country.
6 Answers
- PaladinLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
the states would have little reason to ratify an Amendment that takes away their right to run their own elections
- MatthewLv 69 years ago
Well Mark, a constitutional amendment wouldn't do anything. Something that most people don't understand is that:
THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES ARE NOT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!
The party system is mentioned NOWHERE in the original constitution and George Washington strongly advised against the use of political parties. Political parties are PRIVATE CLUBS in which the members share funds to get their top members elected to government office. The parties themselves are NOT government entities in any way. The primary elections are the same thing as a fraternity house electing who gets to do dishes. It is a private matter which takes place inside the club and is outside the purview of government intervention. Primary elections do nothing but decide which member of the party will receive the club's campaign funds that year. That is it.
- who WAS #1?Lv 79 years ago
The problem is that primaries are not a Constitutional part of the electoral process. It's all unofficial and carried on by the political Parties. So Congress has no say over it.
- DesireLv 79 years ago
When the primaries and caucuses are scheduled has to do with the states and the parties. The feds have nothing to do with it.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Yes, here is the Amendment we need: 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN = MARRIAGE
