Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is the system not set up so that ALL PRIMARIES occur on the exact same day around the country.
We have politicians dropping out without waiting for all of the primaries to get done...
People seem to have internally conflicting views on this issue. They might be worried about politicians dropping out of the race as the primaries go along, but how many of those politicians would have been able to run in the first place if they had to participate in a national primary from the get-go? If campaigns were going broke spending money in a relatively inexpensive state for TV ads and travel such as Iowa, how could they even contemplate participating in a national primary? People seem to want upstarts to have a chance, yet advocate a national system that would give an even larger advange to establishment candidates than it is now. I'm not saying one is better than the other (as a resident of a larger state, I'd like to have some say in the nominating process), but there are consequences no matter what you choose.
If primarys were held on the same day, candidates would only campaign in Cali, Florida, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey, etc. This keep them honest to middle america.
If you held the primaries all on one day, all the candidates would focus their campaign efforts on the more populated, urban areas. The staggering of primaries, while it does tend to force some candidates out early who might have better chances in states besides Iowa and New Hampshire, was intended that voters would have an opportunity to see and hear from the individual candidates. I read an article in the New York Times that suggested having regional primaries, and rotating the schedule of those primaries so that no particular states become so influential election after election.
It really urks me that for the past two election cycles, the presidential nominee has already been determined by the time my state gets to vote. So, why should I bother to drive 18 miles to vote for someone who has already been selected?
Why is the system not set up so that ALL PRIMARIES occur on the exact same day around the country.
We have politicians dropping out without waiting for all of the primaries to get done...
This is often asked, the reason has to do with campaigning. Can you imagine what it would be like to try and campaign in 50 states all at the same time? I think many have suggested there be regional primaries, maybe broken down to 4 or so. That would be one way to conpromise. I know what you mean though, both of my choices were out of the race before our primary. It almost gave us no reason to vote except there were a few local candidates that needed our votes.
To give states political capital, like New Hampshire has a state law requiring primaries to be held two weeks before any other similar contest (caucases are not similar contests), because normally 1.3 million people would not matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
