Why don't we have all the primaries/caucuses on THE SAME DAY?

[MoonRiver]

Wouldn't this be better than quibbling about who goes first? I just don't get the logic of giving one to three states the right to determine our presidential nominee.
:argh:

[threadkillaz]

1. The media needs time to spin...

...their candidates to victory (ie. Dean screams).

We need to have a national primary day.

[MoonRiver]

2. That argument does not convince!

Although it is probably correct. :(

[threadkillaz]

3. "Nobody here but us gunslingers" - Paul Begala

nt

[Ravy]

4. It would probably not give any candidate in a wide field...

... enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination, and the candidate would be chosen by just a convention hall full of people.

[MoonRiver]

5. I don't understand.

Seems like it would be just like the general election. People vote, delegates choose the nominee, s/he wins. No brainer. Or not?

[Ravy]

7. If the state primaries are split among 6 or 7 candidates...

then it makes it harder for anyone to get over 50% of the nominating votes by the start of the convention. The longer primary weeds out the field leaving one or two at the end, and usually someone goes into the convention with over half of the delegates.

Just like people win the NH primary with 30% of the vote with a big field. 30% is not enough to nominate anyone at the convention... so the convention delegates would be swapping their votes around after the first ballot, and it would be only those convention delegates who decide who the nominee is.

It still can happen, but it is pretty rare because the weaker candidates don't make it to the convention.

[MH1]

12. Sounds like time for instant run-off voting. nt.

[Ravy]

13. Well, that is what they do, only it is the delegates who

vote, not the public.

Remember that different states have different methods of voting. Some caucus, some allow same-day registration so independents and greens and republicans can vote in the Democratic primary, some don't allow anyone but people who have been registered as a Democrat for XX days or months to vote in the primaries. Different states have different requirements to even get on the ballot.

There would have to be a LOT of legislative and rule changes to allow a popular vote in all states, and a run-off if necessary by popular vote. Who qualifies to vote? Who pays for the elections? Who gets on the ballot?

I am not saying it wouldn't give us a better candidate... I am saying that getting all the states to agree on the process would be a nightmare. I don't want federal legislation concerning how we pick our candidate.

[Bjornsdotter]

6. That's always been

...my thought. Let the people decide, not the media with it's spin.

Cheers

[blm]

8. Your way would ensure that the best funded, best KNOWN name wins the

nomination before the rigorous task of going through the debate process is even complete. Issues are STILL being debated after the first primary voting takes place. A nominee needs to ENDURE that process and grow STRONGER while going through it.

Sorry, but your idea is actually ANTI-democratic, even though it doesn't mean to be.

The person able to afford nationwide advertising rates will win hands down. Is that really desired?

[Totally Committed]

9. I think that would be ideal.... a nice, long season of campaigning,

and a mutual day to vote, and then we know that no one got in on a tsunami of media sping or "me, too" voting.

TC

[Stinky The Clown]

10. If we did this, then all we'd ever see are uber rich candidates

And the byproduct of an uber rich baseline ... the well funded corporate sponsored race horse.

Imagine how little you'd have heard from Dennis Kucinich. Or Jimmy Carter, for that matter.

[pnwmom]

11. Because winning the general is like winning a marathon, not a sprint.

And a stretched out primary gives us an idea about how a candidate will hold up in the general campaign.

[FormerDittoHead]

14. I agree about change - we should rotate the "early" states...

Living in NJ, the decision is ALWAYS made by the time it gets here. People complain about people not voting. Maybe if it made a difference...

I'm sure voter turnout is greater in New Hampshire...

[On the Road]

15. I Heard a Proposal Once for Nominating a Presidential Candidate

in which a group of candidates spend some time living together at a camp or resort with a representative group of citizens from different walks of life. The candidates and representative voters would spend some serious time together talking, listening, asking questions, and providing answers. Candidates would get to hear what the voters think; voters would get an opportunity to judge the candidates from up close and make a more informed judgment on which should be president.

Seems like an interesting plan.

Actually, there is a process very much like that today. It is called the New Hampshire primary. It is not only that the candidates need to practice retail politics. Over time, the voters learn to pay attention to the issues and become more discerning.

That's why there's a lot to like about the current method. The last thing I would want to see is a massive nationwide primary in which the biggest names and most richly funded candidates have a clear edge.

Yes, it's an issue that New Hampshire and Iowa don't represent the country. But if the current method is changed, I would rather rotate among a few small states from other regions, such as Delaware and Wyoming.

[NewHampshireDem]

16. It would be bad news for smaller states

Keep in mind that after the primaries, the candidates are chasing electoral votes and so never again visit New Hampshire, Iowa, or any place other than California, Texas, New York, and the few large battleground states like Ohio and Florida in the last 2 cycles. A national primary day would just replicate the general election process--the candidates would focus only on the states with the largest number of delegates.

[Sparkly]

17. In that case, how about having all the small states go first? nt

[crispini]

18. Texas, HA. When was the last time WE saw a candidate?

Never! They always write us off in the general. We had to make our own damn Kerry signs.

[hijinx87]

19. it would kill the candidates.

(whoa, there's an idea.)

it would probably make it much more likely that a dennis kucinich or
a non establishment type candidate could get the nomination.