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.
Everyone deserves a vote and a say, The way the primaries are now denies millions of potential voters due to prolonged elections. There is plenty of times for voters to meet and learn candidates - we don't need an additional few months of voting.
Furthermore, This reduces the media's presence in the media, And is frankly less exhausting for voters.
I live in one of those states whose primary is later in March. It's annoying and unfair to have certain states have the first say, Which means their votes shape what comes after. I don't even get a chance to vote for the candidate I believe in. If there were a national primary, On one day, It would be the voice of all, Not the "few. "
I could understand if the candidates still needed to use a train to tour the United States to campaign. Now each state can witness a campaign from start to finish. People know who they want to vote for, However most people end up voting for who they think might win rather than who represents the ideal they want in a president.
There are also those that just won't vote at all because "their canidate" didn't win the nomination. They feel their vote doesn't count because it's not who they really wanted from the start.
I live in Nebraska and our primary voting is in May. By the time we get to vote, Some or a lot of the candidates have dropped out by the time we get to vote. It is unfair that our voice doesn't get heard until it is too late. In 2016, I wanted to vote for Ben Carson in the primary. His name was on the ballot, But by the time I voted, Ben had dropped out. I still gave him the benefit of my vote, But i didn't really count. Everyone should get to vote in the primary on the same day, Just like the general election.
I would rather have a real choice in the primary. It would curtail spending and force the candidates to explain their own ideas without getting feedback and then changing their message. It would keep the media from weaving and bobbing around the issues. The candidates would then have more time and resources for the election. We could also save time by delaying the primary til later. Have it on a Saturday, Too!
And by the time I get to cast my ballot, It will no longer be for the candidate I've been supporting from the beginning, But for whichever candidate is left. A candidate should not lose momentum just because they do bad in early primaries. If the primaries are held at the same time, States are only as valuable as their population and delegate count, Not their timing.
The "front-loading" argument against a national same-day presidential primary is valid. Under our current system, Better-funded candidates could mount a national-level campaign from scratch, While candidates who don't have large corporate or dark-money PAC backing need early-state victories to raise awareness, Support, And most importantly, Money. With that said, Having the SAME states get to go first every year is both unfair and un-American. If we're going to keep having privately-funded elections (to our detriment), Congress should enact a law that rotates which states go first.
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.