A national primary day would encourage people to vote and know when the primary day is. It would unify people across the country to vote and fulfill their responsibility as Americans. How many people know when their state's primary day is? Now how many people know when Election Day is?
More people would know when it is if it were a national thing. This would create a more accurate portrayal of the position of the general American population. This gives everyone a say in government and it makes voting more of a big deal. It is a responsibility to vote and national primary day would encourage people to fulfill the responsibility.
I believe that a National Primary is a useful tool to have. It gives chance to have several debates between the two primary candidates and allows the country to see the future president of the United States in a debate setting against his opponent. It also gives the people of the United States a chance to vote for who they want to be the leader of the country.
A national primary would give all the candidates an equal shot at votes without the waffling that occurs now after a few key states have had their primaries and declared their winners. Unfortunately, many voters want to be on the winning side and will abandon their convictions to vote for the person who has won these earlier primaries. Having them all on the same day would eliminate this problem and hopefully get more voters to vote their conscience.
Too often in today's political climate, presidential hopefuls are forced in local primaries to bend their beliefs in order to appeal to the far right or left of their political base, in hopes of gaining the national nomination. This pandering encourages the radicalization of American politics on a local level, but serves no purpose nationally. If we were to have the nation as a whole vote in a primary, the two candidates selected would be the most popular among all Americans, not just those from Iowa or New Hampshire.
A national primary is not something that would help our nation and would create more problems than it would solve. When a doctor prescribes a medication he considers whether or not the medication is absolutely necessary patient, whether the chance of complications are worth the risks. If the proposal of a national primary were a medication no doctor in their right mind would write it on a prescription pad for their patient.
The primary system works the way it is already functioning. There is a value to making candidates go out state by state and via for election that way. It makes the candidates focus more on local issues, and it makes them go out and meat the rank and file of their parities.
A national primary day is a recipe for failure. It would only make it harder and more expensive for all candidates to have a fair shot at competing. Voters in small and mid-size states would largely be ignored. If anything, it would limit the number of viable candidates and severely reduce choices for the American electorate. If you think money plays too much of a role in our political process now, I urge you to consider the ways in which regional primaries would be superior to a national primary day.