Should there just be one nationwide Democratic Primary?

[Polybius]

If you think about it, primaries/caucuses are sorta like the Electoral College, the only difference being that they are spread across different days/months, with some as early as January and some as late as June. It's not really based on the total number of votes that a candidate gets, but how many delegates they have. Like the EC, if a candidate doesn't have the required amount, it gets decided by someone else.

Imagine if we had one nationwide super-primary, based entirely on who gets the most votes. We can do it early but not too early, let's say first Tuesday in April. That's still more than enough time to rally behind the candidate that is our nominee. Sure, it takes a lot of the fun out of primaries like adding up delegates, but it has many pluses as well. What do you think?

[Demsrule86]

1. States are in charge of elections...and it would mean that votes in small states are meaningless so

no, not a good idea. Also, since we have to win the EC and don't have a popular vote general...we might not field a candidate who could win the EC.

[Mme. Defarge]

2. I live in Oregon and I wish my vote mattered.

[MBS]

3. No.

1. There is real value in having candidates meet voters up close and personal (and voters meeting candidates), in intimate settings. The early primaries (IA, NH, SC,NV) are one such opportunity. And spreading the primaries out over time provides similar opportunities in other states (though, typically, less intimately than in the earlier states.
2. Also, and I'm guessing that this will be truer than ever this year, candidates evolve, voter opinions evolve, various events happen ( national/international crises, other unexpected but candidate- and election-relevant events) , and overall election dynamics change over time. A longer primary season provides more opportunities for voters (and the media) to "kick the tires" a bit on the candidates, to learn about the candidates as situations develop.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. No. One national primary typically benefits the more known candidate.

The staggered primary allows for candidates to get to know smaller audiences and build up their name, as opposed to focusing on a slew of big-ticket states to get the most out of voters.

In early 1992, Clinton did not do as well nationally as he did in, say, New Hampshire and early primary states. In fact, in January, he trailed Brown. In a national primary, Clinton likely is not the nominee.

In 2004, Howard Dean led in national polls until Kerry's win in Iowa. In fact, Kerry was barely above Lieberman in the polls.

It's not a viable reality, IMO.

[Capt. America]

5. No. The only persons who could compete nationally would be billionaires.

[boomer_wv]

8. Really?

Because we have two billionaires in this race and neither are competing nationally.

[thesquanderer]

13. You reversed it. It's not that billionaires are automatically competitve nationally...

...but rather, you wouldn't be able to compete nationally unless you were a billionaire (or otherwise extremely well financed). Because if you had to compete in all 50 states from the outset, nobody who isn't already well financed from the start would have a chance.

[stopdiggin]

6. No. Excruciatingly BAD idea.

want to concentrate ALL the power in the hands of the establishment, the wealthy, the media doctors and the "anointed" candidates? Here's your ticket!

(think you would have EVER heard of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Yang or Booker?)

[boomer_wv]

9. This system

has created the establishment, if you haven't noticed.

Don't you think that Iowa being the first state to vote on presidential nominations for both major parties could have some bearing on why we have corn and soybean subsidies. We're fat as a nation because we eat corn in everything because it's cheap, because it's subsidized. A big part of that is because no politician with national aspirations is willing to vote against something that is population in Iowa.

[stopdiggin]

14. there are changes that would benefit the system (and the people)

the suggestion given in the OP is not one of them. (for the reasons I gave, and others as well)

[Tiggeroshii]

7. YES

Prioritizing states by order disproportionately gives more weight to the ones that are first. Might as well drop all that bullshit and have them all on one day.

[tirebiter]

10. No way, Some states and candidates, like Bernie, prefer to caucus

Kinda fun, actually.

[Recursion]

11. No, but we should rotate the state order

One giant national primary basically rules out all but the most well-funded campaigns. It's also over too quickly: the primary season is grueling but that's part of the point: running for President and being President are both grueling, and the primaries give you a chance to see how the candidates respond to that.

[Voltaire2]

12. Yes. But.

This has to be part of comprehensive political reform that removes the ocean of cash from the system, requires a majority not plurality to win, shortens the campaign to weeks instead of years and uses the national popular vote to elect the president.