Should there be a national "primary" day?

I think it's a good idea, but I haven't thought it all the way through. I believe that a one day round of primaries would minimize media input, though not completely eliminate it. It would also minimize the bandwagon effect and probably produce a more honest picture of what party members are thinking. I think it would also result in more brokered conventions - which may (or may not) be a good thing.

(ie: the money race) even more important. How does someone compete in all the states at once unless they have a huge amount of money.

...and raise money on-line. If we had a single day primary, Dean would likely be our nominee. "Yearrgh!" would never have happened. (I'm not necessarily saying that that is a good or bad thing, mind you.)

The media would be forced to cover policies of the candidates more than the soap opera silliness or horse race histrionics that they cover now.

I wonder how plausible this is, but yet; we don't have regional general elections.

I'd really like to write some thoughtful opinions from people here.

4-5 big regions and have each region vote on the same day. That would allow candidates to concentrate their efforts a bit but still not let IA and NH, of all places, have so much voice in the process.

every 4 years. I HATE how 2 states have so weight in who the nominee will be. Win in the first 2 states and you're the frontrunner? What about the other 48 states? And the media....that needs to be fixed too!

The candidates will just begin campaigning earlier :-)

to run nationally. I believe regional primaries are our best bet.

Northwest, Northern Plains, Midwest, New England, MidAtlantic, South, Southwest.

Each candidate who reaches a certain level of public finance is given commercial airtime on radio and tv. Each region host a debate that candidates certified there HAVE to attend to be eligible for the vote.

These seven regions rotate who goes first. Party officials in the state determine what region that state belongs to (Florida may choose to be MidAtlantic instead of South, Missouri may choose to be South instead of MidWest.)

One could concentrate their efforts in certain states. Presumably, these would be states where the candidate felt they had the best chance. This seems to me to be far superior to forcing candidates to be successful in IA and NH - which are really pretty irrelevant states, no offense.

The regional idea is better than the current system, but not as good as a national primary day. I think that I should state that I don't want to change the ways delegates are chosen, just impose a uniform date.

One day to vote, one day to help monitor the counting or relax and watch the returns. All polls open and shut at the same moments (i.e., at different clock times).

It's the only way to honor our Constitutional rights.

With a one-day national primary, it would be even more difficult than it now is for non-establishment candidates to get going. However, it might work if there were, say, three rounds instead of just one, separated by perhaps three or four weeks. That way, the candidates would have a chance to be heard, and could raise money between rounds. About the only thing I'm sure of is that this "front-loaded" system is far too media-driven.

People show way to much capacity for overreacting en masse.

What I would like to see, though, is a plan for equal, free exposure on all stations that show news programs for all candidates that can demonstrate a certain level of support, in the form of a given number of signatures. The content of those programs would be completely up to the candidates.

Plus I think there is something gained in the close look that the first states get of these candidates (and I'm a Dean supporter)... I think its good for the candidates.
I don't think, however, that there is any reason it always has to be NH and Iowa who go first.

But I think that it would give too much advantage to whichever candidate raised the most money, and that would be just as bad as letting the media have too much influence. The main problem with the primary this year is that the elections are so close together. The bounce from the previous week are just wearing off when the next election is held. It creates a snowball effect for the front-runner, which the media adds to. It effectively makes the first few elections extremely important. But, by not having them all on the same day it does allow for correction if a candidate loses support during the primary season, which would not happen with a single national primary.

Instead, I think they should pick a date, maybe second Tuesday of every month, and have 6 primary days from January through June. All 50 states, DC, and the various outlying places (PR, Guam, AS, and DA) would have to pick one of those 6 days. Iowa and New Hampshire would probably get to keep Jan to themselves but the others would rotate through the other 5 days. By separating the primaries by a month, there would be time to recover between elections. The media frenzy would also have time to die down between each election. It would leave us with about 9-10 states per primary date, which is what Super Tuesday has.