Why don't more states change their Presidential primary to be held earlier in the season?

Question

States like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and now Nevada seem to get most of the attention during Presidential primary season. Why don't other states move up their primaries so they can get more attention, money spent by campaigns, etc.?

To clarify, I do not want the states to do this - I just am surprised that more of them don't do it for selfish reasons, and am wondering what keeps them from doing it.

Answer 1

If you are actually making this a suggestion, I think you have it backwards. I want for the states to push their primaries back later in the year, rather than earlier. I even suggested to my congressman that he sponsor a constitutional amendment that would structure the primaries in such a way that --

1) No state holds a primary or caucus before April 1.
2) Only small states (1 or 2 seats in the House) hold primaries or caucuses in April.
3) Only medium-size states hold primaries/cacuses in May.
4) The largest states go last in June.

But my congressman rejected the idea. He thinks the system should remain with the states. Harumph.

Answer 2

I agree. I would like to see it divided into regions--west, central, northeast and south east, with primaries the first Tuesday of the month for 4 successive months. That way it wouldn't be over after the first 3 or 4 primaries, and the candidates could focus on a particular region rather than a particular state.

Answer 3

That is a suggestion, but i think we should just have a national primary day. Where every state has it on the same day, at least during presidential election years.

Answer 4

I think we should have all the states hold their primaries on the same day.

Answer 5

Maybe they should. But then we'd have nominees picked by February - what are they supposed to do for eight months before the elections?

I say move them all to the spring!