The Primary System - should every state hold its Primary on the same calendar date, why or why not?

Question

I propose that every date have its Primary on the second Tuesday after the NFL Superbowl, that way every American can pay attention for a few days to the Candidates and their positions and it wouldn't interfer with NFL season or March Madness.

Your thoughts please

Answer 1

New Hampshire law says their primary should be first they have continually move the date for their primary to insure this. I think Super Tuesday is about as close as we'll get.

Answer 2

No. The candidates need time to campaign in the states.
The rush to be first to vote in a primary is making the campaign too long. The Federal government should step in and pass a law requiring 10 primary (or caucus) dates. The 5 least populated states would go first, followed by the the next least populated states, and so on. In this way, the campaign season would be shortened, less money would be spent, and small states would not be as likely to be ignored by candidates who need those big state numbers.
In the same vein, the Electoral College needs to be kept so the candidates don't ignore the rural voters for the higher numbers of the cities.

Answer 3

I strongly agree. Too much attention playing with this issue. They should do it all at once. Have a program maybe with a 1/2 time entertainment program for several hours and all the candidates get fair shake on total time. No biased crappy debate questions.

Actually they could put on a show. With a maximum budget. No more political ads. No news articles about the candidates. Everything comes down to the show. A compulsory review of the voting record and campaign finances. Then a meet the family type thing.

Answer 4

I think having them all one day would be too much for the candidates to campaign effectively, but I like the idea of blocks of states having their primaries on a given day. The southeast one month, the northwest the next month, etc.

Shorten the process down and stop giving just a couple of states the power to really decide the candidate.

Answer 5

NO !!

Now, to put this into perspective, you've got to realize that the 'primary' and 'caucus' votes need national coverage, whether you like the media or not.

They do, over time(I may be 'preaching to the converted'), weed out the 'imposters' for a lack of a better term, and obviously determine which direction the country is 'going' with the potential nominees for both parties.

In an election year where the incumbent has to leave, it's even more important.

I can't imagine how 'convoluted' the process would be if even more 'major' blocks of states were to hold their primary/caucus on the same day, let alone ALL of them.

As a Canadian, I do understand your system(YEP), and although quite a lot of it can be based on who has the most money to spend on trying to gain the 'candidacy' for one's party, it seems that your Democrats have a 'lock' with Hillary(I would vote for her twice, hypothetically).

The group of 'pretenders' on the Republican side is so sad. One of these people is going to be the 'fall guy' for the Republicans and probably NEVER, EVER have another 'kick at the can' down the road. Although, Bob Dole, a decent sort, was the 'sacrificial lamb' for the Republicans against Clinton, one must realize that he was 'old' and nearing the end of his political career. Cudos to him for fighting a losing cause, regardless of my political 'bent' being obviously (L) liberal and a Democrat if I were an American.

I would add that Nixon DID get another 'kick' only due to the fact the Republicans hadn't anyone else worthwhile, and the fact that he became president was because RFK was killed !! I doubt very much that had RFK lived, that Nixon would have won - period !! He WAS to be the 'sacrificial lamb' and won by default(mind you, so did Dubya - twice !!).

It's too bad that a potential candidate for president doesn't have to give up his or her 'seat' in the House or Senate to run.

Of course, that would apply to the losing candidate for president for his or her party.

If one can still 'feed from the trough' and also lose, they really lose nothing.

Only the 'real deals' would then show up, and sitting Representatives or Senators would have to think twice, especially if they actually are prime people for the nomination.

I might add that in the present case, with so many 'running' as it were, almost all do it for the 'photo-ops' and exposure in the debates. They know they're not going to win, but it might boost their own situation in retaining their 'seat' if they have one, in the election itself, whether a Senator or a Representative.

Obviously, again, mid-term types such as Hillary would not retain their seat if they lose. As THE prime candidate for the nomination, she would automatically have to resign her senate seat if she wins the nomination - food for thought.

Obviously, others who have to decide to not run for a seat in Congress as their term is up, have to think long and hard about the possibility of not being in government, should they lose as the nominee for their party. Of course, one CAN run again in two years if their is a state senate seat available where they reside or if they just might want to run for Representative.

Quite a system - elections every two years(a MUST for Representatives) - tough go !! - 435 seats and a possible 'shift' in some sort of 'power' in such a short period of time - NOT good in my estimation. They need a longer period of time to 'settle in' and create some sort of 'order' - 4 years.

Conversely, 6 years is too long for senators and their should be 'term limits' to some degree. Regardless of party affiliation, 'senators for life' is not my idea of good governance !!

Just a few thoughts from a Canadian who lives under a far simpler system of government which would NOT have to tolerate such as Dubya and could NEVER be totally 'dictated' to such as he and Cheney do to the American people.

Our Prime Minister AND his party both have to answer if our parliament decides it's time for him to go due to extremely unpopular policies. We then HAVE to have an election and he and his can be tossed out on their 'royal' behinds.

We may have a 'clinker' of a Prime Minister right now, who is 'teetering' on the 'brink' of defeat, thus he cannot force legislation upon us(through our members of parliament) that we don't want. It's as simple as that.

Our Prime Minister CAN be somewhat 'dictatorial' if his party has the 'majority' of seats that the other parties combined can't overmatch by numbers, but he MUST call an election every four years, and his powers are NOT 'omnipotent' such as Dubya's are, even with the Democrats holding power in both the House and Senate.

If our Prime Minister's party is defeated in an election - he's GONE !! The leader of the party that gains the most seats in such an election automatically becomes Prime Minister and can virtually 'change' everything negative that the previous Prime Minister and his party has, shall we say, 'forced' upon us.

It works quite well. We CAN leave in good legislation from a defeated party and Prime Minister and still get rid of the 'garbage'. Now that's good governance AND government !!

Answer 6

Its getting better. Iowa and NH are becoming more and more meaningless to the American people which is a good thing. Super Tuesday will be Super.

Answer 7

I would love to see all primaries held on the same day. The election is not held on different days. Why should the primary election be different?

Answer 8

Interesting concept and reasoning. I wish they would because as someone in a state that has to wait, we often don't get to vote for someone who we feel is better qualified.

Answer 9

Yes the game playing by Politicians is becoming nauseating.

Answer 10

Would never work.

Dems need time to review what other dems are doing before doing anything.