Over at public Address, Graeme Edgeler has a comprehensive guide to the US's complicated primary system.
While I approve of the a party's member's electing its leadership, the way the US parties do it seems rather archaic, and consciously designed to lend a few podunk states vastly disproportionate influence over the nominee (in that candidates who might play well in large states can be effectively vetoed by the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina). OTOH, staggered primaries does lower the cost of participation - it is far cheaper to contest Iowa and New Hampshire (and hope that the donations will flow after a good showing) than it would be to contest a national primary. But still - there has to be a better way than this...
