Our nomination system sucks

First, your argument for money actually stands to the contrary. While low-funded candidates are able to go out and campaign in small states, high-funded candidates are able to simply flood the small market. I agree that the current system gives smaller candidates a chance, but the difference in opportunity is small and it doesn't outweigh the other negatives of the status quo. The current nomination system allows for vicious amounts of pandering. Candidates run social issues in Iowa, then economic issues in NH and Michigan, then military issues in SC. Rather than allowing candidates to express their platforms, the difference in demographics from state to state force candidates to appeal to local concerns due to the high pressure on candidates to place well in the small number of primaries. The main issue in this election has been electability. Constituents want to nominate someone who can beat the other party. A national primary would be more reflective of performance in the general election. Obama trounced Clinton in SC, but trails in most of the super-tuesday states. Clinton's message of electability isn't holding water because people are not aware of her lead in the vast majority of states as well as the national polls because Obama's victory in a single lopsided state floods the press. The current system also entices voters to cast their vote for a front-runner. This is essentially the reason McCain leads now. Whomever can string multipole victories together becomes an heir-apparent and makes it difficult for other candidates to win, despite their more reflective platform. While a series of national primaries would cause this as well. We would be able to make the case that the front-runner acheived that status by appealing to the party as a whole rather than the potentially lopsided constituencies of a very small number of states. Caucuses are inherently flawed. First, they are not reflective of the voting population as they exclude many people from 'voting' due to time constraints or lack of avilability. Not everyone has hours to dedicate to a caucus or the availbility of that time of day. Second, only hard-core activists participate in caucuses. Eventhough they may be undecided, the people who caucus are more involved than the common voter. This means that caucus results are not reflective of support because more apathetic voters may turn out for a different candidate. Third, the minimum rule is not a necessity. Rather than transfering the voters from a smaller candidate, simply count them as present but don't award him a delegate. Your argument here is contrary to your argument for helping small candidates. The caucus system renders small candidates no support, rather than reflecting the real amount of support they got. I live in Iowa. I can tell you first hand that voters here are certainly not reflective of the national demographic. I am a strong advocate for states rights. But, lets face it. Voters vote for a winner. This is why candidates recieve a ten point bump in the next state after winning the previous one. We aren't going to find a state that is even close to reflective of the national opinion. Without a state like this the current system fails. Contrary to what you argue, small candidates are actually limited by the current system. Big market candidates flood the small market and without the funds to withstand a poor showing, candidates are forced to either pander to local views or be cast out of the election. Huckabee is low-funded, but hasn't shown well since Iowa. His conservative populist views held thier, but weren't held elsewhere, hence his failure. Guiliani was the national candidate for months, but because his message didn't grab hold in the early states, he fell down the polls as people claimed victory in demographically lopsided states. If we want a true nomination system, we need it to be national. This is the only way we can find out whose platform is truely conducive to the party as a whole. While I agree that the media is to blame (look at what they did to Edwards), the fact that winners move on in a state by state basis is an atrocity to the political system.