Dumb Question: Why aren't the primary elections just held on the same day?

[gulliver]

Then we wouldn't have states angling to get their primaries in first. We wouldn't have Super Tuesday's. We wouldn't have candidates ignoring states with later primaries or states with later primaries basically having no say.

What gives? Same-day elections are OK for the general election but not primaries?

[glowing]

1. I think that is a great idea.

[A Brand New World]

2. I know - I've always wondered the same thing.

Why does it have to be spread out over several months?

[Imalittleteapot]

3. Not a dumb question

I have wondered the same.

[southerncrone]

4. Ditto wonderer here.

It takes away all the jockeying for position & $ raising, & lets candidates actually campaign in all states instead of focusing on a few SMALL states whose views are not representative of the nation as a whole.

Seems like common sense to me.

[iamjoy]

5. They'd Ignore Smaller States

The candidates would focus all their money and attention on the big states, the population dense urban areas.

I think we need to come up with a better way. I'm not sure what. Maybe asking states to arrange primaries so that smaller states went first. Maybe awarding "bonus" delegates to states with later primaries. This could even be done on a sort of sliding scale to award so many bonus delegates for each week between the Iowa caucus and a state's primary. Don't threaten and punish states for trying to have a say in the process - reward patience.

[gratuitous]

11. "Bonus" delegates hadn't occurred to me . . .

But I rather like it. What might also work would be to carve up the country into five or six regions and hold primaries every five weeks or so. Rotate the regions on a year-to-year basis so different areas would go first each campaign and receive the dubious benefit of all that media attention.

[iamjoy]

17. The Problem With Rotating

is getting states to agree to wait. Of course, once again we could implement "carrot and stick" incentives and simply ask states to be respectful of each other. (yeah, we learned it in kindergarten, but many politiicans forget it)

The other problem with rotating is, how would you feel if your state's (region) opportunity to be first came during a year when an incumbent in your party was up for reelection? Not realy a primary then. Do you miss out or does it get moved? What about when a sitting VP is running and the primary is usually a "gimmee"?

Remember Democrats and Republicans would have to agree to the same thing, the Presidential Primary for each party within the state is generally going to be the same day. And I don't think the Republicans care about being "fair" Most of them are perfectly comfortable with the influence of big money.

[NoPasaran]

6. The traditional idea

Was that candidates would have the time to run campaigns in many states over the course of several months with the field gradually being winnowed out as voters in all regions got to have their say. And believe it or not, it really used to work that way with the winners sometimes not being decided until June.

I'm not a fan of this super-duper-Tuesday thing that's going to hit us in February. I think it's going to be a case of "Wham! Bam! Thank you MSM!"

[napi21]

7. I can tell you it WAS because having them staggered over many months gave the candidates

the chance to actually do personal campaigning in each State. It's reasonable for candidates to concentrate on 2-4 States, and when those primaries are over, they then concentrate on the next group. It's impossible for each candidate to spend any reasonable amount of time in 20-20 states in a realive short amount of time. It simply doesn't work logistically!

[Telly Savalas]

8. It gives candidates without obscene money-making machines a fighting chance.

It doesn't take nearly as much money to run effective campaigns in just IA and NH as it would to campaign nationwide. Hence it gives second-tier candidates an opportunity to get noticed. Furthermore it puts more emphasis on face-to-face time with real people versus just media appearances.

Obviously, these benefits are offset by the fact that the system essentially disenfranchises millions of Americans in the primaries.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. it's getting to be that way. but, it is hard to try to hit all 50 so fast.

[Colobo]

10. It should all be the same day

A smart candidate would NOT ignore small states. It's the same crap with the electoral college...

[BluegrassDem]

12. I think the primaries should be staggered over a whole month by region

The East, South, West, and Midwest states each get their very own primary election with them rotating who goes first each presidential election year. And these super primaries would occur weekly, so it can be done in a month's time. It would allow for each region to get some individualized attention with their own issues. That's my proposal. :)

East: ME, MA, NH, VT, CT, RI, NY, NJ, MD, DE, PA, WV

South: VA, SC, KY, TN, AR, LA, TX, AL, GA, MS, FL, NC

Midwest: OH, MI, IL, IN, WI, IL, MN, IA, MO, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND

West: MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, NV, UT, ID, AK, HI, WA, OR, CA

[BootinUp]

13. face to face campaigning

in the early primaries, if you see advantages to it. I do even though it is not done where I live. I think it does give a better opportunity for lesser known candidates. Therefore if that is true it reduces the influence of money.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. The candidate with the most money would win every time

Candidates that can't raise money wouldn't stand a chance. Same-day elections are okay for the general election, because both candidates have a party machinery behind them which gives them the resources to compete nationwide on top of the $70 million in federal election funds that they get.

The system of Iowa and New Hampshire first may be unfair to the voters not in Iowa and New Hampshire but it's extremely fair to the candidates. Before the system had front loading and candidates stopped accepting public financing, people like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter actually had a real chance to get the nomination.

[Recovered Repug]

15. So what would happen if there was no clear winner?

What if you ended up with 3 or 4 candidates each with roughly the same number of delegates? A fight at the convention? Massive wheeling and dealing by one candidate trying to get enough delegates? Worst case: How about a split and one running as an independent?

[MaineDem]

19. The convention would decide.

And don't even think about one of the candidates running as an Independent. That just won't happen.

[w4rma]

16. Big media/money chooses the primary winners if there is a single primary day. (nt)

[MaineDem]

18. Money

As someone stated above it would give candidates with the large campaign war chests the advantage.

I've always thought they should be grouped, not by region but by size. Smaller states with like number of delegates grouped on one day. They a big state with the same number of delegates that the previous group had. Then smaller states grouped together again, then another big state, etc.

The smaller states would require "retail politics." Candidates would have to go there and meet the people like they do in Iowa and NH now.

No state should be ignored and no state should have all the attention. Although, I do like the tradition of NH having the first primary.

[sutz12]

20. Dumb answer...it's based on a 19th Century model...

when all of the candidates traveled on horses and slow trains.

The more important question should be: Why are we talking about an election that is over a year and a half away instead of working on America's problems?

They should start the primaries in July of 2008, Conventions in September, election in November. Outlaw advertising in any form before May of election year, and no fund-raising until Feb/March. Our election cycle is too long, not too short.

[slackmaster]

21. Great question that is drawing a lot of thoughtful answers

Thank you gulliver.

[dansolo]

22. Far too many states to cover

All the attention would be focused on a few population dense areas, and it would require immense amounts of money to even get into the game.

Personally, I think that there should be about 5 primaries/caucuses on the first day, and that they should be medium sized states that are geographically and racially diverse. They should have Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Delaware, and Missouri all on the first day. I absolutely hate that Iowa and New Hampshire get special status. The candidates spend a huge amount of time and resources in those two states, which are very poor representations of the general population.