Why can't we just have all the freaking primaries on the same day?

[garybeck]

this is ridiculous

and by the way, Primary day should be about 8 weeks before the general election. the more time this gets dragged out, the more of a joke it becomes.

[LordJFT]

1. i used to support single day primaries but now i realize rotating regional primaries are better

that way the people that vote first still get to meet all the candidates

[sandnsea]

4. I could compromise on that

I still like the idea of Iowa and NH always going first. They know the players, know the history of who has done favors for who, have seen all the games and attack strategies, hard to fool them. But if it would put an end to the single day primary stuff, then rotating would be an acceptable option.

See how that compromising stuff works. :)

[LordJFT]

41. WHAT! YOU SUPPORT COMPROMISE?

clearly you must be a corporate pseudo-democrat :eyes:

[TransitJohn]

2. Because then the largest fundraiser

would be the nominee cased closed, while never having to meet any actual voters. It would further remove democracy from our republic.

[annie1]

5. exactly. and the ones with the most name recognition. then people like Giulaini would...

win the nomination before people even knew who that creep is.

[garybeck]

8. I disagree

It didn't take long for people to realize what a creep Guiliani is. we haven't even had the first primary yet and he's falling fast.

[Truth2Tell]

9. he's falling fast

only in Iowa and NH, and some in FL - where voters have actually been able to get a feel for the candidates. Don't count him out.

If we put all the primaries on the same day then we might as well anoint Hillary - or the next corporate candidate the next time around. Super duper Feb 5 was the result of lots of hard work by Hillary allies in many State Parties who understood that a compressed schedule means the most $$$$$$ wins. The less chance the voters have to actually get to know the candidates, the more the Madison Avenue TeeVee campaign determines the outcome.

Compressed schedule = less democracy. And we're already running low.

[garybeck]

13. Guiliani is TOAST.

you can take that to the bank.

the only reason his free fall isn't registering as much in Florida yet is they haven't started to as much attention yet. as soon as they do, they'll see the same thing that they see in Iowa now.

[Truth2Tell]

16. Maybe so

but I don't think that proves compressed primaries don't help the $$ candidates. The Ghoul is just such a stinking pile of shit that even with every advantage he can't win.

[Eurobabe]

17. Ghouliani is CALLING 911 now instead of invoking it.

[PVnRT]

37. How many actual voters are met

after the first three or four primaries? They never even bother campaigning in my state.

[TransitJohn]

40. Or mine.

Smallest state by population coupled with an August primary just before the National Conventions makes us a no-go.

[CK_John]

3. Convince the 50 states legislators to go along with your idea and it will happen. n/t

[annie1]

6. or at least have them all within 3 months of each other.

[southerncrone]

7. How about having regions all have the primaries on the same day.

For instance:
Northeast on April 1.
Southeast on April 8.
Midwest on April 16.
Southwest on April 23.
Pacwest on April 30.

or whatever the Tuesday are following April l.

It could rotate every election cycle.

This way all of us might have a chance to be courted.

Or if not by regions, then let the 10 smallest states go first, then the next 10, etc.

[eridani]

29. Stop making sense!

I'm a Pacific Northwest crone.

[southerncrone]

35. Crones of a feather.....

must stick together. :pals:

[Didereaux]

32. actually I think a regional approach would work and still preserve...

the benefits of primaries, as well as allowing the candidates to focus resources more locally and perhaps let more locals get a look at these people. Perhaps though a 60 day spread would allow for less well funded candidates to get the exposure that is needed to raise the funds for the later races. But those are details. Whatever an organized and predictable schedule is definitely in order. This year is a bit of a goat show.

[DaveinMD]

10. it would cost even more money

than the current process does and wouldn't allow for the winnowing down of the field.

[garybeck]

15. "winnowing of the field"

I don't buy that argument...

the "winnowing" that is going on gives more importance to eariler primaries.

maybe I'm an idealist but I don't see much value in the winnowing. It just means there's less choices for some people than there are for others.

[DaveinMD]

30. it means

we don't get a nominee who only wins 25 percent of the vote in most states.

[Didereaux]

11. you do not understand the purpose of the primaries...

this is NOT and election so much as a fine tuning of the process, It helps determine the pkanks that the ultimate nominee will run on, Further whoever the nominee is they will have been well vetted, and theri cammpaign team well trained and ready fro the general. their are more reasons, bit those are of paramount importance. take the time to do some real study of this process, it will greatly expand your understanding as well as the worth of your input.

[garybeck]

12. my "worth of input"

I don't need you to evaluate my "worth of input" thank you.

the truth is that virtually every other democracy in the world conducts their elections in far less time. I believe ours is drawn out far too much. It's about nearly 18 months of campaigning now for a presidential election. there is no good side to that. while you're busy telling me I should do more research and talking condescending to me, why don't you take a look at Britian's election system. i was talking to someone from there just the other day and she is floored at how long the whole thing takes here. IMHO, it's become like an extended season of "Survivor."

[CK_John]

14. You don't seem to understand this is a state issue. Each state must be convinced

to go along with the other 49 or is doesn't happen. The political parties have to suck up to the states to even get a fair hearing.

[garybeck]

18. yes I do understand.

to change the system, yes, each state (and both parties) would have to agree to do it. so what's your point?

[CK_John]

19. If you know the answer why do you keep posting the question? n/t

[garybeck]

20. OMG................

do you really think my OP was like a constitutional question, like a student asking a teacher what it would take to change the system to have the primaries all on the same day?

dude, that's not where I was coming from at all.

i know how the system could be changed.

I was venting my frustration... saying I think they should be all on the same day...


To clarify:

I wasn't saying "why can't we have primary elections on the same day" as much as I was saying "I think we should have primary elections on the same day."

does that clarify where I'm coming from?

[CK_John]

21. IMO. it's a lot of rant over a trival problem. n/t

[Didereaux]

22. and therein lies the rub....

You still do not grasp the purpose of the primaries. If you hold them all on the same day, it does not allow time for the candidates to be looked at and questioned by locals on issues that concern them, it also requires that a candidates 'treasure chest' be filled BEFORE they have exposure...not likely, at least not legally.

Your use of the term 'dude' exposes the problem you are having, you are still young enough to think you have all the answers and if you don;t you can come up with one in 2 minutes or less...be patient, we ALL went through that stage, and all the older heads put up with us while we did! As you will also someday.

hang in there...it only gets more confusing with time.

[garybeck]

23. enough with the condescending CRAP

you shouldn't judge people by the use of the word "dude." I know people in their 70s who use that word. it's a term of endearment.

you have no idea how old I am

you made several spelling mistakes. should I judge you on that?

i'm not wasting my time on your crap anymore.

if you were as knowledgeable as you pretend to be you would know that if you want to engage in proper debate with someone you should not be condescending and you should not make assumptions and you shouldn't judge. you fail on all three and your opinion is not worth my time. whatever.

[Didereaux]

24. sometimes as a parent one has to be condescending, children are not adults.

[garybeck]

36. you are not my parent

and you have no idea how to engage in a debate and your opinion is worthless to me and you have no idea how old i am or how much experience I have and you have displayed your lack of understanding by making assumptions about who I am based on a few words I have made. you might think you are like a parent talking to a child here but in reality you are conceited with nothing of value to offer to the discussion. by the way I'm older than you think, probably older than you... and one thing I can assure you, even if I'm not older than you, I am more mature than you. I know better than to talk to someone like a child just because I disagree with them or they choose to use a word like "dude." What a joke. You should go back to school little child and maybe take a class on debating and learn how to engage in discussions without making yourself look pompous and conceited. oh and one other thing, while you're talking down to people and calling them children, you might want to mix in a little bit of substantive content to the discussion, so as to not waste everyone's time completely. I guess it's too late for that in this case.

[MGKrebs]

28. None of what you say supports your point.

Having primaries all on the same day would not necessarily shorten the primary season. They could still start 18 months or 2 years early if they wanted to.

The candidates could, and I think would, still go to towns all over America and talk to people. They just wouldn't be all concentrated in 2 states.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/schedules/pastevents/index.html#candidate99


And the "treasure chest" idea is not necessarily correct either. I'm not sure how you are envisioning that this would happen, but most successful candidates for President are moving up from a previous elected position, so they start out with a "base", from their district or state or even just their city. If they can get enough support from their base to reach out to the next state, then they have to be able to leverage that into yet more support. I don't think there would be some "starting line" at which time candidates have to be able to immediately run national TV advertising.

[PVnRT]

38. "Locals"? In Iowa and New Hampshire, perhaps

Do the "locals" in south-central L.A. get to question the candidates up close and personal? How about the "locals" from rural Alabama? Or any other state that doesn't hold a primary within a week of New Hampshire?

[Didereaux]

42. thats why they should be regionalized and rotated over a sufficient

time period. I am not a fan of the present set up, far from it. But the idea of having a Democratic general election to see who runs is tipping the scales so far over that only one or two main corporate feeders will have the bucks going in to cover anything, even then the only coverage would be the BIG electorate areas of the cities and such. No, one giant primary general election is NOT desirable at all.

[Eurobabe]

27. Yeah, the US system enables corruption

look to Germany, they have a very compact primary season with mandatory free advertising on TV radio. Why the fuck can't the US do this?? I think those in charge want the corrupt system to continue.

[Skittles]

25. all I know is, it STINKS

why is it as a Democrat in Texas my vote NEVER SEEMS TO COUNT ???

[Eurobabe]

26. My primary vote from abroad is Feb 5-12, PA is 4/22!

Regional primaries NOW! End the dynasties! Apologies to IA and NH, but no more.

[Sulawesi]

31. Not only do we need a couple states up front, they should be small, like IA and NH

...so that candidates without a big bankroll can make a run via retail politics. I also see candidates growing into presidential material during the election process. Bill Clinton was more prepared to be president when he was nominated than he was when the primaries started. They spend a couple years doing this and they learn a lot.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

33. The only impact I've ever felt I have as a Democrat in Texas is on local elections.

By the time we have ours primary vote (March 4th this year) many will have left the race entirely. I'd have enjoyed just getting to be a part of Super Tuesday for a change. Instead, once again the decision will be made by those who come before us and I'll get no more than a token vote.

Being a Democrat in Texas is an ongoing lesson in frustration.

[mtnsnake]

34. I agree. Let them all campaign till they're blue in the face & then have it all come down to 1 day

The way the primaries are now, there is too much time for outside influence to sway voters minds, like what the media does 24/7. Unfortunately, it's all about the money. The more they're drawn out, the more money the rich people make.

The primaries system is just as bad as the electoral college. Both need to go.

[suston96]

39. Definitely all on the same day after some debates and whatever appearances candidates want to make.

And that date or weekend not more than 90 days before the general election.

As to why this will be difficult to change? MONEY! These scattered primaries raise big money. Solve the money problem and the scattered primaries will go away.

[krispos42]

43. Because they would focus only on the largest states

like they do in the general, leaving the smaller states to go fondle themselves.

I think a 5-week process in May would be a good idea. Something like the largest states and the nine smallest states (by population) the first week, second-largest and next nine smallest the second week, etc.

Week 1: #1, 42-50
Week 2: #2, 33-41
Week 3: #3, 24-32
Week 4: #4, 15-23
Week 5: #5, 6-14

Put DC in the second week, maybe.

So, for week one, you would have California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and DC. 84 Electoral Votes from red and blue states, West Coast, East Cost, and the Midwest.

Week two, Texas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire. 80 Electoral votes.

Week three, New York, South Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Distric of Columbia. 96 Electoral votes

Week four, Florida, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Alabama. 118 Electoral votes

Week five, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusettes, and Washington State. 160 Electoral votes.