Why aren't all primary elections held on the exact same day, nationwide?

Question

I know states get to pick their own primary days, but other than having bragging rights to get special attention, what is the real purpose of this?

Why doesn't the nation just hold a single primary election on a single day, JUST LIKE THE REGULAR ELECTION?

It's all so nauseating!

I mean, by the same logic, shouldn't states have the option of choosing different days for the national race? (This way, states could decide whether they wanted to have their presidential election results early, or be late and potentially decide the election OR be meaningless. So a state like California would have the option of voting BEFORE a state like New York. And it wouldn't be so much "poll closing time" but what date the state chooses to vote on.)

Of course, that is lunacy.... just like the multiple primary election days are!

The primary election calendar seems like a ridiculously nonsensical process that just feeds arrogance and petty jealousies.

What do you think?

pink1957: ROFL! You're right!

Tmess2: I understand the process, and your text should be must reading for why the electoral college process vs. majority vote is so important. It may be fed law that IA/NH go first, but it's a stupid law. I DO appreciate that "smaller" states need a chance to get attention, but how about rotating it each election cycle? Lots of other smaller states would like some attention too! And as far as campaigning goes, really I'm never swayed by money (ads, etc.). What I listen to is the debates, where all candidates say what they think, and their web sites, where anyone with $50 can tell me what they stand for. Negative ads, etc., I see them for what they are. I know they "work", but I think it's because there's something legitimately negative about the candidate, not because of the ad. The primaries should be each party's chance to vote for their candidate, on one day, one shot. Whoever doesn't make it is free to run as an independent.

Answer 1

Some states, by Federal law, must have their primary or caucus before other states. Other states pick their primary date.

CA used to have their primary on the 1st Tuesday in June, when basically everything had been decided, to the 1st Tuesday in February. Since CA has lots of power since it's a big state they rightly chose to move it up.

I wish they would get this whole stupid thing over with. Even after the primaries they have the dumb conventions where all the blow-hards blast the other party, pound their chests & say "look at me I'm wonderful!" It's all a waste of time & money.

Who is watching their speachs anyway? With all that CO2 coming out of them, Al Gore should be screaming about buying carbon offsets! ;)

Answer 2

Several reasons.

First, primary elections are tools used by states to narrow down the number of candidates for the general election ballot. There is no requirement that states have primary elections. (Louisiana doesn't except for federal offices.) As such, the federal government has never interfered in the candidate selection process.

Second, as you noted above, each state does have different closing times for the general election which does give the states on the east coast some influence over the results on the west coast.

Third, none of the parties use popular vote to nominate a candidate. They use delegates. Having all of the primaries and caucuses on the same day would likely make all of the primaries irrelevant as, in an eight or nine candidate national primary, no candidate would get a majority of the vote.

Fourth, a national primary would make early fundraising even more important. For example, both John Edwards and Mike Huckabee are trailing substantially in fundraising behind their respective party's frontrunners. Yet both are still competitive in Iowa. If either were to win Iowa, the media attention might allow them to compete in the later primaries despite the lack of money. Because of federal funding for the general election campaign, this problem is not an issue for the general election.

We do need multiple primary days, but we need a rational system which will take federal involvement. The two parties are doing what they can to punish the states that are breaking the rules of the two parties (Florida and Michigan).

The insanity, however, is not the states going in January. It's the number of states on February 5th -- the first permitted day by the two parties. In all likelihood, the Republican nomination contest will be a complete mess after February 5th. If there is to be a clear Republican nominee, it will be decided by the March 4th primaries -- when you have 3 large states holding primaries -- if at all.

The system that is needed is clear. You need 3-5 small states holding primaries or caucuses early. Small states allow poorly funded candidates to compete by virtue of actually talking directly with a significant number of voters. We are probably stuck with having to recognize Iowa and New Hampshire as being 2 of the early states. The other three can be done at random each cycle. The following could be used as an eligibility rule for these states: a) no more than 5 U.S. Representatives (the number that Iowa has); b) not have been in the first group in the previous 2 nomination cycles. Iowa would get a mid-January date (between 1/12 and 1/18), New Hampshire would get a late January date (between 1/25 and 1/31). The remaining three would get an early to mid-February date (between 2/8 and 2/14).

After the five early dates, the remaining states would be drawn into one of four groups (again with a rule of not being drawn into the same group in consecutive nomination cycles). Group 1 would go between 2/29 and 3/13. Group 2 would go between 3/27 and 4/11. Group 3 would go between 4/25 and 5/9. Group 4 would go between 5/23 and 6/6.

The draw for a spot in the cycle would take place in January of the year before the election (e.g. January 2011). This will give state legislatures (since some of them only meet in odd years), the time to choose an election date if they wish to hold a primary. Given the time constraints on a caucus system, if a state is drawn into group 4 and opts to hold a caucus without a binding primary, it would be allowed to begin its caucus as if drawn into group 3.

Answer 3

No. I did at one element, yet somewhat i might want to assert, "i have considered the user-friendly". Having some small states with Primaries ahead of the %. provides those small states a disproportunate pull on who the candidate will be. this can look incorrect, yet do not forget that those small states may have basically about no result on the perfect effect and it type of feels a straightforward tradeoff. i in my opinion imagine the device is broken on the DEM side. mainly, the perfect 15 or so states frequently haven't any say. I stay in Republican Texas and this is the first time in like two decades that i can vote on some thing of nationwide magnitude. allowing that to exist in basic terms guarantees that the DEMs will not in any respect have any advance the following. If I ran the educate, there might want to be 2-4 small state primaries per week for the first month (10-12 finished) then 2 weeks till large Tuesday and then yet another 2 weeks till a 2d large tuesday. the completed problem might want to be finished in 2 months. i imagine Alaska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Oregon, Hawaii, Vermont, Louisiana, and Missippi might want to be on my short record of latest early states that may dramatically replace this way of candidate we may see. Michigan and Florida might want to be on large Tuesday.

Answer 4

1) Imagine being a candidate, and being able to cover only a handful of States in a single day. With spacing, every State has a better chance of getting a good look at the candidates beforehand.
2) It would also of course be legally impossible to impose a single primary day at the national level, as political parties are private entities.

Answer 5

The primaries & caucuses are more like organized polls to measure potential electability.

You should study the process next year, you will see that candidates drop out after insufficient success.

All primaries the same day would be lunacy -- they cost money & we already spend too much on campaigns with the primaries spread out. Your idea would either be totally unworkable or it would limit politics to only the super-rich.

Answer 6

I AGREE!!!

By the time I get to vote, my vote doesn't seem to mean very much. I think people tend to be swayed by the early results as well, so the "early" states actually end up picking the candidates for us. Really irritating.

Answer 7

Oh My God! A common sense approach to the campaigns! What a brilliant idea. Lets require congress to pass that law immediately and put the Freaking politicians out of our misery!!!!!

ROFLMAO A star for you!