It makes SO much sense to have "round one" so to speak, to decide on who the best candidate for the party would be. That's great! They get to air their views on relevant issues, people get a fair chance to size them up, and most of all, the election isn't stuffed down your throat. You don't get fly-by-night candidates who say things in the moment to get your vote in a few days; you get candidates who must take a stance and defend an opinion over a period of time lest he discredit himself by stating contradictions because he didn't have a firm position to begin with.
The next thing that fascinates me is the actual process by which a candidate, and ultimately the President, is selected. I am referring here the "the primaries" or "caucuses", which have the potential to be somewhat complicated when translated to the National Committees of both parties. I have to say though, this process is a precursor to the Presidential election. After doing a little research I would say the primary/caucus is to the national convention as the electoral college is to the Presidential election. There's that "electoral college" phrase first highlighted (for non-americans anyway) during the 2000 Bush debacle. What the hell is it? And how can a lower popular vote have similar weight to a higher one? And in the case of caucuses, how can you send unpledged delegates to the Convention after having the caucus? Some things, I have to admit I just don't get it.
One thing I've settled on in watching the election drama: down with Huckabee, a President with a lisp would never do, just drives me up the wall.