Make the primary dates random each election cycle

[Clintonista2]

Wouldn't that solve alot of this crap? Randomly generate which state will go first, second, third, etc.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Why don't we just have a primary day on which everyone votes?

:shrug:

[yewberry]

9. There are a few reasons.

The biggest are financial.

Only the most-financed candidates would have a shot. Candidates would have to first be on the ballot for every state, and state election laws are a patchwork. As an example, in NH, all a candidate must do to get on the ballot is file a $1000 fee and be a member of a recognized party. Most states are not that easy or cheap. So, do we standardize state laws or force campaigns to navigate state laws and hope for the best?

How can candidates campaign for a national primary? It really only makes sense to stick with states with lots of electoral votes, because that's where they'll ultimately need to be. Then we've got campaigns in which issues that are of concern in CA, FL, TX, IL & NY are the issues. And how do you pay for a national campaign? It'd be hugely expensive, and candidates would be going from tarmac to tarmac. Compare that to a NH launch: you can run a campaign in NH for $500,000. There's one statewide TV channel, few statewide newspapers (but many small papers that show up for every event), and an army of volunteers with built-in political networks.

And there are intangibles. Facetime--that would be a thing of the past. I know that as it is, most people don't get the chance to actually talk to the candidates, so it might not feel like much of a loss. However, having candidates focus for a short time on a small state gives them that time, and there's something really good about what we can learn about a candidate from having them do that. A month of unscripted questions from real people and not moderators is valuable (though I wish the national media would carry more of those events and that more people would pay more attention when they do). Also, a candidate has an opportunity to test and build their messages and their staff in a single-state primary.

A national primary would flatten out the field--we'd have only the most heavily-financed candidates (ie corporate candidates), homogenized issues targeted for a few states, and campaigns that are less well-prepared.

[Donnachaidh]

2. doesn't NH have it written into law that it must be first?

And that they can move it to whatever day makes them first?

[plusfiftyfive]

4. Yes, and it's a stupid law

Next thing you know, they will be voting on Christmas day 2007!

[SheilaT]

3. A national primary,

perhaps in April. Top vote getter is presidential nominee, number two is vp nominee.

The parties will never go along with that, but I like it.

Oh. And direct election of the president. No Electoral College nonsense.

[plusfiftyfive]

5. That would have prevented Bush from

Becoming the worst President ever in the history of the USA.

And would have saved thousnds of lives, not to mention tens of thousands of injured vets.

I like that idea.

[Ediacara]

16. Meh... McCain would have been twice the war monger as Bush

(although maybe 9-11 and Katrina would have been smaller disasters)

[Adelante]

10. It could work with mandatory public financing

But as long as candidates raise money themselves you would have the richest campaigns winning most easily. You would also need free television coverage and a whole lot of it, because candidates would never be able to campaign personally on a schedule like that. It would change from small, personal style politicking in small states, which a Bill Richardson, say, can manage to move around in, to hugely expensive campaigns in hugely expensive markets, with these larger states setting the mo'. It might flip the situation, but not resolve it.

Believe me, I wish it could happen, but unless we get a grip on our elections system and how we finance it, it ain't. Democrats who even may want it won't do it unless Repugs go along and probably can't. It has no hope except as a non-partisan and massively so effort - we all know how that goes.

[Colobo]

13. Great idea, Sheila. Common sense.

[lapfog_1]

6. Good idea...

The problem with a single national primary day is it rewards candidates who raise a great deal of money and punishes those who are better "retail" politics (speaking to small gatherings, building a grass roots organization).

Having a set of dates (spaced every two weeks) and having no more than 5 states per date, and randomly drawing the state/date assignments would be a great idea. Primaries over in 10 weeks, and no single state gets to eliminate good candidates that the residents of that state don't like (regional affinity or whatever).

[SheilaT]

7. I could definitely support this one.

Too bad it's so logical that it stands no chance of happening.

[pscot]

12. Suppose we held a national primary in February

Hilary gets 34%, Obama28%, Edwards 20%, Richardson 12% and so on. Now you have 5 months of stasis until the convention. Five months of back rooom wheeling and dealing, leading up to a brokered convention. Just like old times.

[lapfog_1]

17. Except that most delegates are bound to vote for their candidate

legally.

Not to mention why should an early front runner (name recognition) have that much power at a brokered convention?

Nationwide primaries make no sense to me.

Having Iowa and New Hampshire (or any other two states) choose who is likely to win the nomination also makes no sense to me.

We need a new system.

[mohc]

8. I honestly do not know what the best solution is.

The problem with the current system is not just that New Hampshire and Iowa are first, its the effect that being first has on the rest of the states. If this influence is unfair, all randomly assigning dates will do is make the unfair influence random, not remove the influence. Having a single day national primary has its issues as well. The cost of such an election would be fairly equivalent to the general election, and with far more major candidates running for the primary than the general, the total cost would be enormous. So long as money plays such a significant factor, the "retail" aspect of the NH primary and Iowa caucus will be important, but it need not be these states only. Of course if we cycle through small states for a first spot, the larger states will of course be upset. I just do not think there is a clear best choice at this point.

[BluegrassDem]

11. We should have regional primaries that rotate every 4 years

That's the best solution. The country would be broken down into 4 geographic areas with each area rotating around every 4 years. So one year, the southern states go first, then in another 4 years, the eastern states go first, etc. I think this way is more fair and equitable.

[defendandprotect]

14. Was there better control over selection when the candidates came out of . . ..

smoke-filled rooms?

Perhaps it's impossible to go back to those times, but is this something like a company asking citizens to select their presidential candidates for them?

Maybe we'd be happier if the Democratic party put forth candidates?

Would we?

[CK_John]

15. How would you get 50 states to agree? We don't understand our own governmental process.n/t