2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAre staggered primaries good things?
Just spitballing, and this isn't really a Bernie vs Hillary thought. I have no idea how either would fare in a Primary Day national election.
I'm just wondering about how the system works. If you're an Iowan, for example, you cast your vote in January. But then the candidates spend another five or six months campaigning. Over that length of time - and it's a lifetime in politics - you might learn a lot more about the candidates. You'll have seen them more, see how their campaigns take shape, see how they deal with pressure. There might be some gaffes, some developments, some shifts in policy positions. Maybe one of the candidates grows a tail.
Whatever the case.
But then, you cast your vote in January. No take backs.
Is this a good system?
I'm fortunate to live in California. I feel like I've got a pretty solid handle on everything primary related. But had I cast a vote in January, I feel like I'd have been less informed. My vote wouldn't have changed (I'm a partisan), but you can't say the amount of information out there now isn't nearly exponentially different.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it would allow people to vote their conscience without thinking (much) about electability.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)of the states should rotate each time.
I don't think that Carter could have won, if there
was only one national primary, because he was
very little known in the North.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)since he was little known outside of his own state. It's important to let information get out there.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Staggered primaries do provide exposure to less established candidates.
And that's really mainly down to the fact the media only pay attention when there's a horserace. That's my one hang up about a National Primary Day. What would incentivize the media to actually provide exposure for the months running up to it?
I almost want to say "non-binding primaries under the current system" to provide a "narrative" and then a Final Day That Counts. But there's an expense concern there.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)We can still prevent a President Trump.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Other, better-functioning democracies have relatively short elections - on the order of a few weeks. There is no need for a year-long Primary, followed by a year-long General. All this does is hyper-accentuate the "horse race" aspect and maximize the importance of campaign funding.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Between election campaigns are pretty sweet.
Joob
(1,065 posts)Otherwise Hillary would be our President as we speak
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)There is so much that is broken with our system, to solve one problem (length of campaigns) we have to solve bigger ones (apathetic and ignorant electorate).
Joob
(1,065 posts)It would have to be done very efficiently. I'd say stop all scheduled programming to watch debates in US. But uh, hah that probablly wouldn't work out so well.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)People have learned to tune out advertising, and they don't like being sold.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)As sick as I am of the primaries, I think staggering them allows the candidates time to connect with the voters and make the case for their vote.
Smaller less "influential" states (states with few electoral votes) actually get time and visits with the candidates. States with a majority of the opposing party voters actually have some say nd their participation is meaningful.
I hate it on a personal level ... but it is probably good for all of the electorate