<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Primary Colors (Trees And Things)</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/11/15/112039/06</link>
<description>Two states have held a monopoly on being the first to begin the Presidential Primary contest every four years: New Hampshire and Iowa. The 2008 election may shake things up with various states trying to move their primaries to &lt;a href="http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/05/04/florida_ballots/">earlier days&lt;/a>, and &lt;a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/NATION/110200042/1001">candidates ignoring New Hampshire or Iowa&lt;/a> to go after delegate rich populous state</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:23:17 EST</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:03:29 EST</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: How about instant run-off primary voting?</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/11/15/112039/06#5</link>
<description>I agree with you about the instant runoff concept and in general about NH and Iowa, but for all their white, conservative, rural, knocks, they have been pretty progressive, if not wholly representative.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:03:29 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: How about instant run-off primary voting?</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/11/15/112039/06#4</link>
<description>An &lt;a href="http://www.instantrunoff.com/how/instructions.php">instant runoff&lt;/a> system for the primaries would be ideal.  It would give the lesser candidates as much of a chance as the current system, while still allowing a single national primary date (</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:39:20 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Shy Elf: Another election system which won't ever happen.</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/11/15/112039/06#3</link>
<description>I'm really amazed that the current system lasted as long as it did. &#160;It was basically put in place in 1972 when we first had a majority of delegates elected by primary and committed to vote for their candidates, and since then the earliest states have</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:18:41 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: the wetkarma plan</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/11/15/112039/06#2</link>
<description>Not a bad idea at all...I was going to say the Delaware plan was my fave but that one seems even more equitable. Too bad neither will have happen...</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:21:53 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>wetkarma: the wetkarma plan</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/11/15/112039/06#1</link>
<description>States get their primary dates set based on their percentage turnout in the prior election. Higher turnout gets to go first.&lt;p>&#10;No primary can be held prior to February 5th of the election year.&lt;p>&#10;That is all.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:12:11 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<textInput>
<title>Search Trees And Things</title>
<description></description>
<name>string</name>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/search/</link>
</textInput>

</channel>
</rss>