Why aren't all Primary Elections Held The Same Day?

[ThomWV]

Why aren't the primary elections all held on the same day? Its not like those of us in late-voting-states have any say in who the nominee will be anyway so what difference would it make? If one date is good enough for the General Election it should be good enough for the Primaries.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. greed

the early states LOVE the $$$$ spent in the run up to an election. that is the only reason.

[HereSince1628]

2. Seems like it just trades one problem for another.

The single day would probably also shift the campaigning to larger population states, leaving small states left out.

[saltpoint]

3. Because we prefer pointless chaos to focused order.

Each little state organization wants its own little drive-through primary gig.

I'd love to see the process streamlined.

But it's too late this cycle.

[murielm99]

5. I can't say I disagree with your point about

pointless chaos vs. focused order. There has to be a better way.

However, as a grassroots foot soldier, I don't like what you say about "each little state organization."

The grassroots are the party. We make many of the decisions, and get the vote out. Democrats would not have even the slim hold on Congress that they have now if not for us. We provide for the future by fighting like hell to elect good local Democrats, even in red counties like mine. We nurture those people, and try to get them to run for higher office when they mature.

We deserve our little drive-through primary gigs. Primaries should be clustered, or held on dates that are closer together. I think the states should take turns being first or second or third.

Talk to Dr. Dean, or anyone you think will listen. But remember that we are Democrats. At least fifty people will tell you to leave it alone, or that they have a better idea.

Please don't discourage the grassroots. We won't have a party if you do.

[saltpoint]

7. Agree that the grassroots is the heart and soul of the party, but

the primary system is out of control.

And I do characterize this me-first leapfrogging going on right now. It makes each state's organization look like kindergartners. It's unimpressive and irritating and ultimately cheats ALL those state parties because it pretends that a Democratic vote in Iowa or Florida is more important than one in a state whose primary is scheduled afterward. It's not the same race. Those aren't the same kinds of votes.

Iowans went for Kerry 37%, Edwards 32%, Dean 17% and Gephardt 11% in 2004's caucus. Gephardt was out the same night as the vote before midnight. It changes the percentages, it gives Iowa Democrats' demographic preference over a Democrat who votes in New Hampshire the week after or in another state MONTHS after.

It's unfair and misrepresents the process it's designed to work for.

I've been in those grassroots organizations in more than one state. I defend them all the time.

But this primary schedule is for the birds.

[billyoc]

4. A compressed primary season locks out all but the very richest candidates.

The candidates with the most money for TV commercials would win every time.
The longer the primary season, the more voices we get to hear.

[murielm99]

6. Good point.

Thank you.

[saltpoint]

9. The current primary schedule does the same locking-out.

Media markets are limited and in the U.S., candidates with more money have the far easier time of buying air time. HClinton and Obama have the big budgets. They can buy time in advance, no matter which state holds a first primary, no matter how many primaries are clustered on a given date.

Under the current calendar and in the past, the voters have to be trusted to choose wisely. But they are certainly influenced by media advertising, which favors the candidates with money to buy it. If you were a Gephardt supporter in 04 your only chance to vote for him was Iowa in January. And you would have lost, but you got to vote your conscious and heart. The next morning he was out of the race and if you were in Pennsylvania or Michigan or Idaho, your vote suddenly counted for less than the people who voted in january in Ames or Des Moines.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. How else would Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina be relevant?

In all seriousness, the idea behind it is to force candidates to pay attention to those smaller states early, so that SOMEONE pays attention to the issues that concern them.