Would A National Primary Be A Good Idea?

[Syrinx]

It seems to me that it would be a good idea.

It would eliminate the excessive influence that New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina have in picking the nominee.

It would eliminate the "horse-race" nature of the primary race and, seems to me, would lead to people voting for their truly favored candidate.

But there are probably problems with the idea that I haven't thought of.

What do you think?

[Skittles]

1. YES

I really resented that John Kerry was a done deal before the voting even got anywhere NEAR Texas

[Syrinx]

3. me too

I don't think Kerry even visited Alabama. I know he didn't have a snowball's chance down here, but he did have a lot of supporters nonetheless. He sent Edwards down once, but all he did was to go to a fancy rich liberal fundraiser, and then jetted out of town. Sigh. (I'm big on Dean's "50 State Strategy," by the way.)

EDIT: Ooops. I was getting my primary and general mixed up. Sorry.

[EST]

2. It would fix a hell of a lot more problems than it would cause.

Also, all elections should be held across a weekend, with, at least, two days available for voting.

[Syrinx]

4. I like that idea

But what if the election was just one day -- on a Sunday! A lot of fundies firmly believe you shouldn't do anything on Sunday -- it's a day of rest. :evilgrin:

[UrbScotty]

5. Yes - see my journal

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/ih8thegop/35

[Syrinx]

6. Thanks for that!

I firmly agree with #1 and #3. I have mixed feelings about #2. But even on that one, I see your point. :hi:

[Syrinx]

7. for people voting "no," please say why you don't like the idea

As this is primarily an attempted exercise in self-education. ;)

[Golden Raisin]

8. And they start too damn early in the calendar year.

It's like the catalog companies --- these days you receive the Christmas/Winter catalog sometime around the 4th of July or maybe even Memorial Day. Primary season starts way too early. The whole "pre" election process stretches out too long. And with today's 24/7 saturation media coverage from the whorish CNNMSNBCFOX conglomerate you get biased editorializing masquerading as news with infinite, endless, microscopic parsing of every time a candidate hiccups, burps, snores or farts until the electorate is drained/hammered to the point of brain-damage from boredom and repetition. Its the same phenomenon as the loop footage of the planes hitting the World Trade Towers. We do not need to see it 7 million times over and over and over: "Kerry is a flip-flopper"..."Kerry is a flip-flopper"..."Kerry is a flip-flopper"..."Kerry is a flip-flopper"..."Kerry is a flip-flopper"... Sitting first term presidents feel compelled to start running/campaigning for their second term and virtually cease governing 2 years into their first term. I have always liked the idea of a National Primary Day and it should be in perhaps May or June prior to the November election. There is no earthly need for this insane race among the states to see who can be earliest and first --- as much as 2 years early. And while you're fixing the primaries, please get rid of the damn Electoral College as well.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. The process starts early because of money

As far as the actual primaries themselves, parties want to have them earlier so that the challenger can have time to get his message out, when he's competing with an incumbent president who has had four years to do that.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. No, money and name recognition would be too powerful...

What we need to do is spread out the early primaries and stop having 4 or 5 state primary days before Super Tuesday. Iowa and New Hampshire had so much influence in 2004 because instead of waiting three weeks and then having South Carolina, there was only a week and there was South Carolina and 6 other primaries that day. The momentum and the cash was with Kerry after Iowa and New Hampshire and nobody stood a chance against him because there was a "mini Tuesday" a week later. If there had been a three week waiting period and only the South Carolina primary after that, Edwards probably would have been the next comeback kid and all of a sudden the race would've been competative and there would have been no "frontrunner".

We need to spread out the primaries and we need to rotate who gets to have them early so that each state has a voice. But a national primary will just be about who has the cash and the name recognition and won't allow unknowns like Jimmy Carter to emerge.

[Syrinx]

11. Interesting point about the "unknown factor"

I hadn't considered that!

But maybe the internet has changed that. Dean was pretty much unknown nationally until the internet began burning with his message.

I don't know... just thinking out loud really. ;)

[mcscajun]

12. On surface it may sound appealing, but the exposure and testing

of candidates during a primary season gives the public a good look at who this person running actually is and whether he/she should be their next president before committing to any one candidate.

I agree that there is some excessive influence exercised by New Hampshire and Iowa, and certainly Super Tuesday leaves a lot of states "out of the loop" (I'm in NJ, and we're damned near DISenfranchised in primary season -- our state legislature has been working to change that by moving our primary date to an earlier one), but I don't see a one-day primary as solving that.

A one-day primary would favor well-funded, well-known candidates at the expense of the rest, who need the time an extended primary season allows to build support, improve their name recognition, and raise funds to continue their campaigns. The small scale and personal contact of the New Hampshire and Iowa experiences allow lesser-known candidates with limited funds to get a toehold in the race.

New Hampshire is a crucible of retail politics on a small scale, and potential supporters meet the candidates in their kitchens and living rooms. The Iowa Caucuses are attended by serious minded, questioning voters. They represent unique opportunities for candidates outside the usual way primary elections are conducted elsewhere.

I voted "No".

[primative1]

13. Voted Yes but with same reservations

Most of the early primaries are over before I have any firm immpression of the candidates. Unfortunatly by the time I would be ready to actualy vote someone has already decided for me.
If only there was a way to get that much time exposure before voting took place.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. No -- but I actually mean probably not. I'm not close mined to the idea

I can imagine some advantages.

However, such an approach might have the consequence of minimizing the level of debate, not just on the candidate themselves but vital issues too. As an example the Dean campaign did help bring the debate about the Iraq War into the forefront and kept the debate going. It also helped create a whole rebirth of grassroots politics in a way that a national primary might not.

I would also be concerned that a single national primary might have the affect of eliminating all but the pre-ordained establishment candidate.

Perhaps a two or three step process might be a good middle ground

[emulatorloo]

15. No - A Dennis Kucinich could not afford a national primary

You would only get big money candidates like Hillary and Warner.

[The Magistrate]

16. It Would Not Bother Me, Sir

The demands of a national primary would winnow out a great deal of chaff. It would restrict the field to figures of genuine national stature and political experience. The campaign could proceed without sideshows and fringe snipings, and would accordingly be a less embittering enterprise.

[Syrinx]

17. that's to everyone who has participated

I hadn't considered the idea that a national primary would hurt the chances of a relative unknown catching grassroots fire, but that's a very good point.

What if we divided the country into five or six regions, and have a series of primaries with one state from each region participating?

[LWolf]

18. Yes,

as long as the grassroots candidates that people prefer can campaign on equal footing with TPTB.

[MaineDem]

19. No

Money would go to big-delegate states only. Only big budget candidates would be able to compete.

If you thought your state had no say in the '04 primary consider how few states would be in play with a national primary. As has been said above, name recognition would play a major part especially in smaller states.