Why not have pres. primaries/caucuses on the same day???

C-SPAN is showing the DNC debate about changing the primary schedule, and it seems most are opposed to a one day primary. What is wrong with this picture? We have general elections on one day, why not primaries? Somebody, please explain the logic of spreading out the primaries/caucuses to the detriment of giving all states an equal say in the selection of our presidential candidate.
:wtf:

...is that it greatly tilts the balance in favor of candidates that can raise bucketloads of money. It costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million to win a presidential general election, and it would likely require that kind of money to win a primary if they all were on the same day.

The idea of starting the primaries in a few small states is that then the citizens of those states have the opportunity to really get to know the candidate. It is a local election rather than a national one, so the money necessary to compete is much less. The theory is that a candidate with a relatively small war chest but a powerful message can compete with a candidate with a huge war chest but no message.

Unfortunately, our current front-loaded primary system pretty well undermines that advantage. A dark-horse can win New Hampshire, but then that candidate could get railroaded by the big money after that.

I suppose a solution would be federal funding for primary candidates. Of course, this has a snowball's chance in hell of happening any time soon.

(The front-loaded primaries just piss me off.)

I also don't agree with the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries basically deciding who our candidate will most likely be, either.

I say all candidate $$$ raised should go into a pool, with the amounts doled out evenly, with a certain amount of free media coverage guaranteed to all across the board, with all the rpimaries on the same day (and all caucuses abolished -- they are archaic at this point). And, let the winner take all. The losing candidates then give back all the $$$ they have left, and it goes to the winner for the WH run.

Naive, maybe. But, it would be fair. And, I would feel better about supporting a candidate this Party chose fairly and squarely for a change.

TC

Nothing of that sort has been discussed on the C-SPAN DNC forum, sadly. :(

The DNC doesn't give a rat's ass what we want as far as Primaries, etc. go. That's why I said my proposition was naive. It makes too much sense and is too fair to ever be "considered". They wouldn't be able to control the outcome as they have in the past, you see.

What I would like them to know, however, and don't know how to get them this message with any certainty, is this: They can no longer take my vote for granted. If they come up with some front-loaded mess that gives us another loser candidate, chosen by them, and shoved down our throats, thinking we'll just vote for the lesser of two evils, they need to think again. Either they give me a candidate I can wholeheartedly support and vote for, or they lose my vote. I won't vote for the Republican for sure, but I won't vote for their choice, either. And, I know I am not alone in this. They screw Democrats like me this time at their own peril.

TC

to pick the candidates. I'd love to see these "white" candidates having to stomp around some urban centers to win voters to their side. I think this whole push came from Carl Levin...thank you for listening.

I'd recommend instead a couple months long process with the states picked out f a hat each cycle to see which ones go first, last etc.

I think it would be more fair, and would also generate a lot more interest.

One day primary? Just give the nomination to Hillary or whoever the best known candidate is and save the cost.

it allows people to consider other candidates a bit more. If I live in Michigan and am supporting candidate Jim Bob. After a few primaries I see he is coming in last place. Candidate Larry, who I do not like, is in the lead. Candidate Skippy, who I do like is in second place. I might consider changing my vote to Skippy when the MI primary rolls around.

Personally, I'd love to have a run off. I think that the non-Hillary supporters may spread themselves out over many candidates, and I am worried that she might get the nomination with a extremely small plurality of the vote.

Less money down a rathole, shorter primary season, harder to manipulate the public's point of view via media propaganda. All to the good. The rest of the world doesn't spend a year preparing for an election, it's more like six weeks.

The main problem with a one day national primary is that it would immediately become a NATIONAL campaign and the candidates would most probably focus their attention on the big states and the big media markets.

The main benefit of the current system is that the candidates proceed from state to state meeting individual voters.
The cliche about New Hampshire primary campaign is "I'm not too sure about "insert name of candidate here", I've only met him twice."

Currently, we have what has become known as the "front loaded calendar" because states have noticed that the early primaries produce such momentum that the process is essentially over after Super Tuesday. Since nobody want to vote for on question that's already been decided, everybody wants to get to the polls in February.

The task force recommended adding two states in between Iowa and NH for racial and geographical diversity. Their recommendations were approved yesterday, but have to go before a DNC vote in April, so they may or may not be implemented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121000940.html