Rather than giving extra weight to a collection of less-populous, mostly right-leaning states. States that have more people should get more say, because that is how democracy is meant to work--it's meant to serve the greatest majority. Right now the field gets thinned before the great majority has an opportunity to give input.
Otherwise, far too many oligarchs dictate, according to tradition, hierarchy, or some other measure of special interest voting.
Why have NH or IA caucuses as first? Why not states with largest population as first? The idea is to remove undue influence, not add it!
Is this a democracy or not?
Only the first few primaries actually matter in the overall scheme of things. Iowa and New Hampshire have the ability to thin out the playing field and eliminate lots of politicians. These politicians slowly lose support, money, and public opinion simply because of failure in these two states. This phenomenon even affected Romney in 2008, he lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, thus McCain was able to take the lead, and ultimately become the Republican National Nominee.
The way things currently work, only the first several primaries even matter. By the time the late primaries roll around, the candidate has all but been selected. What this means is, only people in certain states really get a say in who represents their party. I don't think that is fair, and I don't think that is what is best for a party trying to put forward their best candidate. No offense to Iowa or Iowans, but I don't see why they should have such a powerful effect on who the candidates for the presidency will be every single election.
I would be all in favor of the idea of making this happen. The reason for that is because it would certainly open the door for every state to have the opportunity in their popular voters of all parties to get to have a say before the race of having multiple opponents in all sides to choose from is over. It is another thing for Colorado, Wyoming, and North Dakota to get counted out through GOP fraud in 2016, and for the whole system to be rigged, but it is one thing that there are always remaining states in every presidential election year who never got to choose between multiple candidates even of their own party by the time for whatever reason the candidate has always been narrowed down to one who would be the nominee. So, for the sake of all of that, I am in favor of the idea and everyone considering bringing into law.
Uiv vrjo4rv 4rviutv hkv re vht vht h vh h h ghg gh gh hg gh gh gh hg gh hg gh gh gh gh gh gh gh ghgh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh gh
If every state had its primaries on the same day there wouldn't be time for minds to be changed because of media hype. Absentee voters would still be able to cast votes within the allotted time. As it stands now people listen to news reports and are basically told not to bother in some instances casting a vote because it's already projected that a certain candidate has won.
D d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
First, a national primary would give a huge advantage to better-known, better-funded candidates since only they would be able to finance the expensive advertising and large campaign operation needed to run a national "get out the vote" effort in all states. Lesser-known candidates without extensive campaign operations would not have an opportunity to reach out to voters in retail-style fashion and build support. Moreover, densely populated states with higher delegate counts would become the dominant focus of the campaigns and the media. In addition, political parties would have little control over the selection of their eventual nominee, and state party leaders would no longer have the flexibility to set their primary or caucus dates according to state-specific considerations, such as redistricting issues, state holidays, or other state and local elections.
If you want evidence of why a national primary won't work, just take a look at 2008. At least 24 states held a primary or caucus on February 5, resulting in what was essentially a de facto national primary. Super Tuesday became Tsunami Tuesday. The situation was so bad for overwhelmed campaigns, party leaders, and election officials that the two parties worked together to ensure their rules for 2012 would help avoid a repeat.
The primary system is a party system. The political parties have the right to set the tone and the date of the primaries as they choose. The political parties use the primaries to reward certain states. They have the right to choose when and where the primaries will be held and in what manner. Sometimes primaries for the different parties in the same state are even held at different times. That is okay, because primaries are part of the political party system.
I do not think that it makes a big difference if the primaries are set for the same day or not. It will not matter in the grand scheme of things, just so long as they are done and the voting is fair so that the popular vote is correct.
If all of the primaries were to be held on the same day, it could cause a lot of potential confusion with the voters. Voter confusion is a dirty tactic and should never be used. All primaries should be held on separate dates to limit the confusion of the average person. More Primaries encourages more voting.
No, I don't think that all US presidential primaries should be held on the same day. I don't think that it is necessary. I think that by doing them on different days, it gives various candidates time to shine if they previously didn't do well or time for the voters to better get to know the canidates.
For the true political aficionado it is possible that some people may want to attend both presidential primaries. Therefore, I do not believe these events should be held on the same day. I do not believe holding these events on separate days makes much of a difference in the long run.