Should we have a National Primary Day?

[qdemn7]

Poll question: Should we have a National Primary Day?

With all the controversy about Florida, the DNC and states wanting to leapfrog one another so THEIR states matters more than Iowa or New Hampshire, I want to get a sense where people here stand, and why.

My positions are:

We should, it would save time, effort, energy and money.
It should be held as early in the election year as possible.
It should occur on a Saturday.
It should involve both parties.

Am I wrong? My positions aren't set in stone, I want hear all ideas. Please give me your thoughts.

[Demeter]

1. YES! With Instant Runoff!

Think of the time and money saved. Think of the fairness. Think how screwed all the vultures and vampires would be! Think how the lobbyists would lose influence. I can't think of a single reason this would be bad for the United States--although some parasites might have to find new victims.

[plusfiftyfive]

6. Well I think we certainly can improve on this helter skelter "system" of chaos we have now!

How about three primary days, for each and every state in the Union, each state selected randomly to be in one of those 3 days, separated by a month, from March 1 to May 1, or something like that?

Each candidate would have no control over schedules until they are set, 3 months before the first primary. Each candidate would have to talk to ALL of America if they ran before the states were selected for each date. Each candidate would visit HI and AK as well as NH and IA.

[1932]

2. No. Candidates without the money to run a nationwide three-day TV campaign should still have chance

to get their message out.

I am very happy to have a small state go first, and I'm even happier to have a state with a caucus system go first so that the last thing you hear before you make your vote is, possible, your neighbor's voice arguing why he or she thinks a candidate should get your vote.

[NastyDiaper]

4. Agreed.

IA, NH and SC are small enough, and represent a reasonable spectrum. I'd like to see a western state like OR added. But once the states are large, it's all a money and name recognition contest.

While we can't stop big states from moving primaries up, we can and should marginalize their delegation. And I live in FL.

[1932]

11. I live in a big state too, and I do NOT want my multiple media market

multinational media companies which do NOT care about the average Americans best interests being the mediator between candidates and voters.

[plusfiftyfive]

10. We, the people own the airways!

We should "REQUIRE" all news networks an major entertainment netorks to give TWO HOURS, (in amounts decided by the candidate) to EACH SINGLE CANDIATE...before any primary. This is a way to cut DOWN on the cost of campaigning. Something we need to pay nothing for.

[1932]

12. I am very happy to let a state where there's a very high chance a voters saw candidate in person

or talked to a live person face to face about the candidate go first.

The less mediated the relationship between voter and candidate, the better off democracy will be.

[yewberry]

3. I vote no.

We'd need to have publicly-funded elections already in place before we could have a national primary. Less-known and less-funded candidates wouldn't have a chance otherwise, and we'd ensure that only wealthy, corporate-backed candidates could compete.

I think there is a place for retail politics, and a national primary would kill that. We'd ensure that candidates only campaigned in states with lots of electoral votes. Also, candidates would not be able to use the early small states as testing grounds for their messages and staff.

I agree that the system needs to change, but I don't like the national primary day.

[tkmorris]

5. No, that would be a collosal mistake

The candidate with the highest name recognition/most money would win EVERY time.

[XemaSab]

7. People in Iowa and New Hampshire take being first in the country VERY seriously

Many people I had talked to had gone to see ALL the candidates before making a decision.

That would not be possible in a larger state.

[plusfiftyfive]

13. As someone in one of those states...

I can give this up, for the chance of the majority of Americans to participate.

This "special" status for NH an IA, well, why shouldn't ANOTHER state get that "special" status for once? We have a number of "small" states... SD, DE,MT , even states with low population like VT, WY, ME, ID, NE don't THEY deserve a chance to get this special attention every 20 or 30 yrs or so?

[IndianaGreen]

21. There should be no "special status" for anyone!

We should have a rotating system of regional primaries. There should be several weeks in-between regional primaries to afford candidates enough time to recover in case of a less than stellar performance, and to let the ones that did well have enough time to solidify their gains.

[last_texas_dem]

35. I agree with you

A rotating system of primaries seems like the fairest way to pick a nominee. It gives different states an opportunity to go first, but doesn't "nationalize" the primary system like having one day for all primaries to be held, and in turn enabling the candidate with the most name recognition and most money, would.

[IndianaGreen]

17. And their track record is one of selecting LOSERS!

The only thing Iowans take seriously is the millions of dollars they rake in from candidates, their entourages, and the media flock. Months of cash flowing into their pockets!

Should we mention how Iowans coerce our candidates into endorsing the wasteful and environmentally unfriendly ethanol program?

Worse yet, we cannot make candidates frontrunner based on the skewed and seriously flawed opinions of Iowa voters. Why is that? The general election requires our nominee to perform nearly flawlessly in a market that is dominated by large populous states and big media. The best way we will know if a candidate will do well as the party's nominee, is if that candidate is tested during the primary season under conditions similar to the ones he/she will face in the Fall. Having two or four small states be first skews that process, giving as frontrunners candidates that will do well in a small market, but fail miserably in the big show.

I don't support the idea of one national primary. I would rather get rid of the Iowa and New Hampshire first, and whatever other dwarf states they drop in the mix to preserve the status quo. The best solution is having a rotating regional primary system, in which groups of states of different sizes and composition vie for the candidates' attention. Such a system will work better than the current one in helping the voters select the candidate who has the best appeal across the entire country in the general election.

[Yael]

8. Voted No. Not without public campaign financing in place...

[BeyondGeography]

9. Between early primary states and swing states most of the country is left out

In New York, we only see national candidates when they need money. The same is true in California and Texas. And that's just the three largest states; many others are effectively forgotten at campaign time. The impact of Iowa and New Hampshire in the primaries and the electoral college in the general is absurd and anti-democratic (but maybe that's how the framers wanted it).

[plusfiftyfive]

14. MY POINT EXACTLY!

If people are bold enough to suggest that we should take money out of MY pocket to finance political campaigns, (a position with which I do not have a problem, by the way, as long as EVERYONE GETS AN EQUAL VOTE!) give us primaries in 50 states, give us random order of primaries, decided by random selection 3 months before the date of the first primary. Don't have candidates in NH a YEAR before their primary! Have those candidates speak to 50 states and Puerto Rico an the US VI. We are ALL EQUAL UNDER THE ELECTION LAW!

[jmp]

15. No! The Mullah's in Iowa & NH should choose for the rest of us.

...

[plusfiftyfive]

16. Cute answer....And so true!

I would like to know the dollar amount primary candidates spend in those two states, the dollar amount the networks spend in those two states, and the cost per vote..I bet it exceeds $20,ooo!

[ISUGRADIA]

29. You'd loose that bet

300,000 voters x $20,000 each equals 6 billion dollars

[yewberry]

34. Please.

You can run a campaign in NH for $500,000.

That's a big part of the reason NH is early. The cap for publicly-funded candidates is (I think) $661,200 in NH. California? $12.5 million.

The per-voter cost doesn't really mean much if you're an under-funded candidate. Until we have all publicly-funded elections, we need small states to give ALL candidates an opportunity to campaign on an equal footing.

[IndianaGreen]

19. ETHANOL! ETHANOL! ETHANOL!

It is bad enough that we have to hear Democratic candidates, who are usually rational, lose it when they go to an AIPAC convention and spew the bellicose crap that crowd loves to hear. Now we have to see a similar disgusting display of pandering when the candidates have to go to places like Iowa and pander to the ethanol industry.

[cobalt1999]

18. Yes, and I understand the small money candidate concern.

However, it comes to to this...Should we subsidize the small money guys by making the votes from the people in large states meaningless?

Shouldn't we at least let the large state people vote on whether or not they want to sacrifice their votes to boost the small money guys? If not, that doesn't sound very democratic.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. No and there needs to be one or two primaries a week

Iowa and New Hampshire only have so much influence because after the window opens all of the states jump to the front. The momentum of Iowa and New Hampshire propel candidates to frontrunner status and since there's so many states going the next week, other candidates don't have a chance to catch up.

It used to be that Iowa and New Hampshire were a good launching pad but not the entire game. Gary Hart won Iowa in 1984 and didn't get the nomination. Dick Gephardt won Iowa in 1988 and lost the nomination. Iowa went to favorite son Tom Harkin in 1992 but Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire and didn't get the nomination.

2004 is a good example of how front loading destroyed this system. The week after New Hampshire there was a "mini Tuesday" with tons of states going. Kerry won all of them except for South Carolina, which went to Edwards. On the previous calendars only South Carolina and no other states would've gone that week. If South Carolina had been the only primary that week and Edwards had won, Kerry's frontrunner status would've disappeared and it would've been a horse race.

Also remember that in 1992, big states did have some say. Illinois was the state that really solidified Clinton's frontrunner status. He also had to fend off a late challenge from Jerry Brown and win California and New York, California and New York had a say in that race despite the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire went first.

IMO, until we can get public financing here's what needs to happen...

Iowa and New Hampshire or other small states can go first. For the rest of January and all of February one state per week, small-moderate sized states. In March, one or two states per week small-moderate sized states. April, three to five states per week. By the end of April it should be theoretically down to two candidates and both should have sufficient national name recognition to compete and thus a "Super Tuesday" with all of the big states and those that have not gone yet could occur in late April or early May. The big states would have a voice in that they would make the final decision between the two top candidates.

[supernova]

22. Yes, there should be one primary day

and I think we should also move voting to Saturday. It hurts voter turnout to have it during the week when people have to beg the boss for time off to go vote.

[sandnsea]

23. Campaign Ad Candidates

Just what we need. Why don't people understand this.

[qdemn7]

28. Sorry...

I don't understand your meaning, can you clarify?

[sandnsea]

30. It would be ALL campaign ads

That's it. The winner would be whoever could flood the television and mail boxes with the most ads. No personal public involvement at all. It would be awful.

[qdemn7]

32. Ahhhh

OK, I see your point now.

[Colobo]

Of course we should.

[Colobo]

24. Of course we should.

[Nutmegger]

25. Absolutely not!

That would be very unfair.

[wyldwolf]

26. Only if the outcome favors MY candidate. Otherwise, no.

If my candidate won on a national primary day, Democracy will have been served. If my candidate lost on a national election day, it would be a travesty of Democracy with rigged voting machines, media manipulation, and too much corporate influence.

Get it? :)

[LWolf]

27. My thoughts:

Whether the races are spread out over a season, or whether it's all on one day, the votes all have to be counted at the same time, and exit polls cannot be broadcast until the last vote has been cast.

I'm told that one primary day unfairly penalizes those with smaller campaign funds. Ok. Spread it out and count at the end, or, even better:

publicly financed campaigns with no donations allowed, and all candidates funded equally and given equal air time.

It's counting the votes at the same time that "counts" in an effort to make sure that one vote doesn't "count" more than another.

While we're at it, let's use a modified Borda count to tally votes.

[depakid]

31. "It should be held as early in the election year as possible."

I completely disagree with that... as would just about EVERY OTHER Western Nation.

There's no reason whatsoever that the election season should run as long as it does... in fact- like many bits of the American system, it's utterly absurd.

[ArkySue]

33. No, and here's why

No candidate could possibly campaign effectively in all 50 states at once. Necessarily the smaller states would be left out and the campaigning would be in the big states. That leaves out a lot of voters (probably why some states moved their primary forward).
One solution to this problem would be public financing of campaigns and free media time.

A better solution is to have 5 or 10 states have primaries/caucuses every 2 weeks or so. It would spread out the election enough to allow the candidates to flesh out their ideas on the various issues.

I don't know what the rush is about choosing a candidate early. So much can happen between the nomination and the election that might make the nominee unsuitable.

I agree with the Saturday vote, or have Election Day declared a National Holiday. After all, the Vote is (supposed to be) one of our greatest freedoms.

Cuncur with both parties' primaries being simultaneous.

I will say that Arkansas moved their primary to Feb 5th in 2005.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. No state should be priveledged. That needn't mean a single day.

Why not have a fortnight or so when people are allowed to vote, with the running tallies being publicised?

[NoPasaran]

37. No, no, a thousand times no!

I would prefer that we went back to something like the primary calender as it existed thirty or forty years ago, when the season extended into June and some of the big states, like New York and California, were among the last to vote. As for voting on Saturday, sure, I'm all for that (although people who work in service industries will still be begging for time off if their state doesn't allow early voting)... or making Election Day a mandatory national holiday.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Sure, why should mere millionaires be able to run for President?

Wouldn't it be a much more efficient system if we rigged it so that only Billionairs could afford to run for President from the get go?

[penguin7]

40. touche

[CK_John]

39. I voted no because I can't see how 50 states would agree to it. What is your 50 state solution? n/t

[Greyhound]

41. No. If we did, the result would be that only corporate backed candidates

would have any chance at the nomination, and only California, Texas, NY, FL, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, would ever see or hear a candidate.