I don't understand the primaries. Why don't they just all happen on the same day?

Answer 1

The candidates use the primaries as "bellweathers", to test the waters, so to speak. The outcome of any given primary can influence the future course of their campaign. If a candidate does really poorly, he (or she!) may realize it's not worth it to continue. On the other hand, if a candidate does really well, he/she could get more campaign contributions from benefactors who were too nervous to put their money behind someone without knowing how popular he/she is.

Answer 2

Candidates used to be chosen by the party in much the same way as the parliamentary systems do today in countries such as England. Primaries where only in a few states and were used to check out voter sentiments, for example the West Virgina results in 1960 to see if a Protestant state would vote for Kennedy. Only with the "reforms" of the 1970's did voters gain a large say in the candidate selection and even now in some states the delegates are chosen by caucuses not voters. We now have an mixed system which is complicated and has more to do with the history of candidate selection than reason. The advantage of the present system is that the later voters select between the two surviving candidates while the early ones thin the field. If everyone voted on the same day a candidate in a field of 10, a candidate could win with only 11% of the vote. A party could end up with a candidate with very strong support by a minority of voters but totally unacceptable to the majority of voters, even in their own party.

Answer 3

The simplest answer is that the states want more attention from the candidates. If all of the primaries were on the same day, then the candidates would focus on only a few key states, and totally ignore others. Since they are spread out, the candidates need to spend time in different states as the primary calendar moves along. More attention from a possible future president means that he or she might focus a little more on the issues that state thinks is important.

Answer 4

Primaries, especially in the small states, give the candidates the opportunity to meet voters one on one. If the primaries were all the same day, the campaigns would have to rely on big money media buys.

In a legal sense, the primary date is up to the individual states. The common thinking being, the earlier the primary, the more attention the state will receive.

Answer 5

The first few answers were way off. There is actually no rational reason behind holding primaries on different days. The answer is, that is how the system developed (and it has nothing to do with state's rights or sovereignty or the like).

Each political party used to select its nominee without primaries. The Conventions were actually where the "horse-trading" took place within the party to determine the presidential candidate. Beginning relatively late, many state parties began to have caucuses or primaries in order to select "delegates" to the Convention. Thereby the party members or "voters at large" selected the preferred presidential candidate and not the party bosses.

However, the transition of allowing real people instead of party bosses to select presidential nominees was slow, a few states like New Hampshire or Iowa were early supporters of letting voters decide presidential nominees. Some state parties with more powerful party bosses (the Boss Hog type guys who run the local city or county) held on to their power to select delegates longer than in other states. In other words, in the ad hoc rush to have a presidential primary some states were faster than others. Now each state wants to have an earlier primary because later voting states have little influence in the decision.

Why not vote on one day? The answer is because the RNC and DNC haven't decided to use that method, they could if they wanted, as political parties can set their own rules for selecting presidential nominees. It may make a great deal of sense to rotate states or have a one-day national primary, but states like Iowa and New Hampshire are determined to be first, because they have only be first and like the notoriety that being first brings them. If the RNC or DNC, however, changed the rules, there is little Iowa or New Hampshire could do other than complain, and that may be more "democratic" and actually well, sane than the current system which has created a year-long presidential election just because of the selfishness of a few states who demand to be more important than they would otherwise be entitled to be.

Answer 6

Because it would be impossible for any candidate to run in 50 states at the same time. Even the most financially secure candidate could not do so effectively.

By breaking up the primaries and doing a few at a time, it allows candidates to focus on a smaller number of states at a time.

I'm not saying I like the system, but that is the reality. Nobody can run in 50 states simultaneously.

Answer 7

This has more to do with States' rights. Each state holds it's own primary. When the constitution was written, each state wanted (almost) sovereignty over itself. Don't we all have our little 'power trips' and fiefdoms?
The same thing happens on National election day. When we elect a president, we don't hold a national election. Each state holds an election. That state's votes then go to the candidate that state elected. (In actuality, we hold 50 mini elections and then each state casts a votes).

Answer 8

The basic answer is this: not enough money. Since more delegate rich states are moving their primaries up earlier, the money they have raised has to be strategically used on those important early and delegate rich states. Knowing this, theres no way to have a national primary date because it will simply be too expensive.

Answer 9

Some people like to see how others are voting before they vote.
They want to vote for someone with a good chance of winning.

Some people do not want to be influenced by how other states vote.
They want to vote first so their vote will influence how the other states vote.

Iowa and New Hampshire have less minorities, less Republicans, and less urban areas than most states so people should not expect the remaining states to vote the same as them.

Answer 10

I agree. It seems ridiculous that states have different voting days. It still would not take away from the results if all the votes happened on the same day.