text: The regional progressive primary is definitely a better idea than ONE national primary.  The purely national approach would make it impossible for anyone to compete but those who could spend the big bucks immediately in the major population centers (big states like California, New York), and would very much cut against the historic concern --still seen in the much misunderstood and unfarily maligned Electoral College-- of allowing various states and regions to have a say in the selection of the President, not just big population centers.\n\nAnother note -- the criticism of our 'founding fathers' for the part and primary system is rather offbase.  The Constitution had NOTHING about parties, and most of our leaders initially railed AGAINST the formation of specific parties... but it still happened in the 1790s, and proved a more constuctive way to resolve issues than the focus on personalities that happened when there was not a functioning two-pary system (which could get quite personal and bitter, as both John Adams and his son found out).  \n\nAs for the whole primary system, that is later still, after the convention system was in place. (The first 'party convention' --with delegates from the various states-- was held by the newly organized "Democratic" party that made Andrew Jackson their, ultimately successful, candidate for President in 1828.)