Why are states taken on individual days for a primary?

[Tiggeroshii]

Why doesn't the Democratic party have every state to vote for a primary candidate in one day? Why is it such a drawn out process?

[FrenchieCat]

1. Because the winner would be whomever the media decided.....

1. A month of good press on the candidate THEY wanted and poof, we'd have our nominee.

2. The market would be too large to allow any other influence other than money to determine the outcome!

[Tiggeroshii]

2. Isn't that how it pretty much is, though?

I think having the election on one day would help prevent most of that, because once somebody wins the first state(most of the time), that candidate wins everything. The media essentially decided Dean's losing Iowa by airing that clip a day before the caucus. If we had them all in one day, the significance of one state(with very few delegates) woul be nil contrary to the way it is now.

[ripple]

3. You make a good point

Right now, the media pretty much predicts the front runners (if not the winner) after the first couple of primaries. If they were all in one day, the media woudn't be able to influence successive primaries. A lot of people will change who they're supporting if they believe their candidate of choice doesn't stand a chance.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Less so now, because the states that are "first" are still relatively small....

and so there is still a chance for retail politics to play almost as big a role as the media....and certainly the money. If you recall, the media were not so much pushing hard for John Kerry or John Edwards Before Iowa (although they did give those 2 more "positive" coverage than any of the other candidates contesting....and Dean had been the recipient of much positive publicity for an extended period of time prior to getting the "Caucus" comment tape a week or so before the Iowa vote. The caucus comment could not have affected the Iowa race by that much.....if folks thought that he was truly qualified, etc...

So I do agree with you that the media is still the major player in our decision as to how we vote....but based on what you propose, the media would then become the ONLY player aside the large quantities of money candidates would have to pour into every corner of the United States in order to have their message heard.

Until the fairness doctrine is brought back, I don't see how what you are proposing improves on what happens as of current!

[smalll]

8. I thought that the "Dean scream" occurred ON the night of the Iowa caucus -

he was trying to buck up his supporters to carry on the campaign despite not performing well in Iowa. The release of the (sound-doctored) tape affected the New Hampshire primary which followed after that. Am I wrong?

[FrenchieCat]

9. Poster and I were talking about the news story which showed a video

footage of Howard Dean dissing the methods of the Iowa Caucus and stating that it wasn't a good system. This probably did hurt him before the election with some Iowa Caucus voters, but I can't think that it attributed to his overall placing of 3rd.

[DaveinMD]

5. that would be amazing expensive

to campaign that way. A nationwide primary would mean nationwide ad buys. It would dwarf the expense of the current system.

[left is right]

6. 3 super Tuesdays with at least 1 state in every region voting

on each of the Tuesdays. And electorial votes are devided in such a way that a primary winner can't be declared until polls close on the third Tuesday

[FrenchieCat]

7. That might work.....

and winner can't be declared until the polls close ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. I've seen them call the race in one state after those polls close but it influenced voters in a part of the country where the polls were still open. That also has got to go. I know we want instant results, but the media should not agree to our impatient demands!

[bemildred]

10. Too hard to manipulate the outcome.

You need to have time to mount propaganda media campaigns against the "mistakes" that the voters will make.