>>>
>>>But you can make the argument in the opposite direction. Only about 12 states mattered in this election, so the campaigns visited them over and over. Voters in California and New York and Texas and Wyoming and ... didn't get to have an impact.
>>>
>>
>>When emotions cool down, there will be time to consider this.
>>We really got the shaft in 2000, when you could make the case that Gore won on both counts, only to have it stolen by some robed thieves.
>>However, even if we get the White House, we're being killed in congressial and in state and local elections, where people's lives are most affected.
>>The party has been clobbered since the 2010 mid-terms and has to acknowledge that it's out of touch with the electorate.
>>
>>I personally think that the electoral system is OK
>>
>>However, I'd be for a national primary election day held one year before the presidential election, where the national popular vote would select the winner for each party, with other candidates who meet minimum vote requirements getting on the ticket.
>>The current primary system is crazy.
>
>I'm opposed to a single national primary day because it strongly favors the party favorite and doesn't provide time for an insurgent to build a following. However, I've run across two alternate systems that I think would be a major improvement on what we do now. Both involve having 4 primary dates, essentially a month apart. Call it one each in March, April, May and June.
>

The problem with anything but one day is that day one has an artificial influence on how voters feel on day two.
It's might be all irrelevant.
Based on what Trump has done, by the time we have the next one, polls might have been replaced by Likes on Facebook.