is it time to do a amendment for all states to change there primaries to 90 days before the national elections

Answer 1

And while we're doing that, let's limit the campaigning season to 180 days before the national election. That way, there will be a limit to how long ugly signs are allowed to clutter the roadside, a limit on the number of boring accusatory TV commercials, and fewer chances that voters will forget what was said about what or whom at the beginning of the election season. After all, most voters have memories only a year long...

Answer 2

Kansas hasn't had a primary but twice-once in the 80's and the last time in 1992, so i don't think it will matter much to my home state, but to others around the country.

The only benefit I see for an earlier primary is for the candidates themselves: that they will know who is on the ballot and then the ones who aren't will be able to stop spending their campaign money, other than that I really don't understand why they would want to make them earlier.

However, if you live in a state that does the primaries you will want to make sure you are registered for your party and that you vote for the person you want so that their name hopefully ends up on the ballot.

Answer 3

No, not at all. The real political season doesn't begin until after the parties choose their candidates, and if they chose them only 90 days before the election, there would not be enough time for campaigning. Very bad idea.....

Answer 4

Why? So there's no time to change positions on issues?

That would probably be a good idea. And if all of the primaries were held in a one-to-two day period, there would virtually be no time at all for an early winner to simply be accepted by the majority, since he or she has already won in a few places.

Answer 5

That would not be enough time to discuss the issues between the candidates. Assuming at least some of us do not vote for the prettiest person, or the bigger name, but rather on the issues...that would seem to be important.