One Day - All Primaries. Tell me why I'm wrong about this.

[Blue-Jay]

I don't "get it" DU. Why do Iowa, NH, and now Nevada get the first crack at nominating a candidate? As everyone is aware, if someone wins big in those states, they are nearly assured the nomination.

Is there a serious reason why this method is still used?

[Hippo_Tron]

1. Because it's unfair to candidates who can't raise $100 million

The system of Iowa and New Hampshire is far from perfect but until we can get public financing it's better than having a national primary.

Iowa and New Hampshire are small enough states that candidates can be judged on their abilities and not just their ability to raise millions of dollars to bombard the airwaves with TV ads. If there had been a national primary most people would never have heard of Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter.

BTW, the system of front loading is basically putting is more toward a national primary and Iowa and New Hampshire don't have the influence that they used to. The only reason that Kerry did so well after his Iowa victory in '04 was because Howard Dean spent all of his money. If Dean had spent more wisely and not done the "scream" speech, Kerry's victory would not have been a certainty after Iowa.

Because of front loading I can say that with about 90% certainty that the nominee will be Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, or possibly Al Gore if he enters the race. Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, and Chris Dodd make for great conversation but they stand next to zero chance because they can't raise the money to compete in front loaded primaries.

[Blue-Jay]

9. Explain your statement, please.

"The system of Iowa and New Hampshire is far from perfect but until we can get public financing it's better than having a national primary."

What is wrong with having a national primary?

[Hippo_Tron]

10. It's unfair to candidates who can't raise a lot of money

Because they don't have the party insider connections to raise that money. Campaigning in 50 states costs a fortune and requires you to have an established political machine behind you or be as wealthy as say Steve Forbes or Ross Perot. In the general election, the party is your political machine and therefore you have the resources to run a national campaign. In the primary, certain candidates have a machine behind them and others don't and it's not fair to force the ones that don't to campaign in 50 states.

Outsiders that don't have machines and don't have fundraising connections should not be denied a chance to get the nomination and without public financing having a national primary will do just that.

Iowa and New Hampshire are small enough states that outsiders can win there without having to raise absurd amounts of cash and that's a good reason for them going first. But even if they do go first it won't matter if we hold Super Tuesday the week after February 5th. We need to have one primary in small to medium sized states at least until March or April so that candidates that didn't have the connections to raise money before Iowa can do so based on their momentum from a primary victory.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. Indeed

It turns the primaries into a partisan General Election. Any candidate that can't field a 50-state operation in January doesn't have a chance.

Interesting Note: Going though the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary winners back to 1976, the two have both predicted the eventual nominees in only one election cycle (2004). In every other case, one or the other got it wrong.

Go Tsongas!

[Hippo_Tron]

18. 2000 as well

But you could argue that Bill Bradley wasn't a serious challenger.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. 2000: Right on the Dems, Wrong on the Reps

McCain won the New Hampshire primary. But the broad point is that winning either or both of these is far from making your nomination a "done deal."

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

2. When was the last time the Iowa Dem caucus winner won it all?

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Al Gore was the last Democrat to win the Iowa Caucus and be elected President

John Kerry was the last Democrat to win the Iowa Caucus and get the nomination.

[Blue-Jay]

8. To deny that the Iowa caucus has no effect on the process is disingenuous.

Plus, you answered a question with another unrelated question.

Tell me: Why shouldn't we have ALL the primaries on the same day? Why is that idea wrong?

[rinsd]

16. Because then campaigns would not have time to build.

If your campaign did not have much money way in the beginning, you could be screwed by having to focus on the whole country instead of a select state or two to build momentum.

Also the feasibility of organizing for 50 states simultaneously would crush all but the best financed and party connected candidates. Even just concentrating on the largest population states would prove problematic for most.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. Aside from Gore...

The winner of the Iowa Democratic Caucus has ended up in the Oval Office twice in the last thirty years (1996/1980). For the Republicans, the Iowa Caucus has been predictive three times (two of which were Reagan and Bush Jr. in re-election years, so that's not really saying much).

[Bjornsdotter]

4. I'm with you

All on the same day.

Cheers

[Old and In the Way]

5. I'd consider that if there was some way to nuetralize the money advantage.

I'd prefer that the candidates have a spending ceiling and force all candidates to focus more on debates / Q and A formats that mass advertising. Probably not in my lifetime. Of course, that could open the gates for dozens of would-be candidates and how vetted would these people be if we had a single day primary season? Maybe a regional primary system would be more appropriate.

[Generic Brad]

6. Neutralize it by outlawing pre-primary tv advertising

Do three primaries in 1/3 of the states each time. For the first primary have a full panel televised/pod cast debate. Narrow down to the top five candidates for the second set of primaries and repeat. The final primary is for the top three from which comes the confirmed presidential candidate. Every four years a states primary position gets rotated.

There are ways to do this that are better than the current system.

[Old and In the Way]

13. I like your ideas....

Sort of a political version of American Idol.

[trayfoot]

7. All on the SAME day!

Yeah, there is a reason for this idiotic procedure - it's called money and allowing the "wheels" of the party to decide who the nominee will be. This totally defeats the reason for the Primary procedure in the first place!

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Agreed, George McGovern knew exactly what he was doing when he created the system

He was taking the power away from party insiders and giving outsiders like Jimmy Carter a chance to get the nomination.

[Recovered Repug]

12. So what would happen if:

the NE, South, Mid-West and West each voted for a "favorite son" candidate with no clear winner. Convention fight?

[zulchzulu]

17. The cost to run for President is absurd, so partitioning it out is best

I am absolutely for a British-style election cycle where the entire election season is about 6 weeks...OK, make it 6 months. There would be numerous debates with all the candidates and advertising would be paid for by our taxes. It would level the playing field and not take as long and cost so much.

But until then, fairly inexpensive states like Iowa and New Hampshire allow for campaigns to be able to afford advertising, etc.

If all the primaries were on one day, the candidate with the most money would be able to advertise and campaign in all the states, while better but possibly fledgling candidates would be fairly unknown.

[johnlal]

19. It should all be on one day

Otherwise, some people are disenfranchised. The GENERAL election is held on the same day in all 50 states. Why not the primary? I get so sick of New Hamshire and Iowa always having to be first. I would like to have some say in the matter.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Too much room for the media to manipulate.....

and it would leave us with only big money candidates......

No chance for regular great folks without deep pockets to compete.

That's not a democracy, that's an aristocracy.

[meldroc]

22. Some better solutions:

Yes, I agree that it isn't fair that Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada get first pick. But yeah, there is the funding issues mentioned - it's easier for a less-well-funded candidate to get some traction on the money-monsters the way it's currently done. Here are a couple fixes:

1. Random rotation of order of primaries. Bias so small states are more likely to go first. That way, one state, or a few states don't get the monopoly for every election. It might be New Hampshire one election, then Colorado the next election.

2. Keep the order as it is today, but keep all election results secret until the party's national conventions. That way, candidates still get the chance to do small-scale low-cost campaigning, but nobody knows who won until every state's primaries are finished. Enforce with huge fines, jail time, maybe even threatening to bar states from being able to send delegates to the convention if their primary results are leaked early. Make sure the media is also required to keep the results secret, including results of exit polls and such.

[mentalsolstice]

24. However...

Doesn't your #2 still preclude a small-name candidate from gaining traction. Let's say you're a little-known governor from a small southern state, and you win one of the early primaries. Well, then that makes deep-pocket donors sit up and pay attention to you, thus allowing you to keep plugging through the other states. If the results are kept secret then who's going to notice that Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter set Iowa and/or NH on fire.

[smalll]

23. The Iowa/NH system is better than the alternatives so far -

it has its advantages as posters above have pointed out. Here's my little idea: preserve the early small-state nature of Iowa/NH, but do this: I googled up the fact that New Hampshire is the 41st largest state by population; Iowa is as large as the 30th out of 50.

So take those 21 states from Iowa at 30 to Wyoming at 50 -- randomly select, a year or two before the primary dates, which two states will have that privilege that year to go first. Look at the list:

Iowa 30 -- 2,926,324 total population
Mississippi 31
Kansas 32
Arkansas 33
Utah 34
Nevada (about 2,000,000)
New Mexico 36
West Virginia 37
Nebraska 38
Idaho 39
Maine 40
New Hampshire 41
Hawaii 42
Rhode Island 43 (about 1,000,000)
Montana 44
Delaware 45
South Dakota 46
North Dakota 47
Alaska 48
Vermont 49
Wyoming 50 (about 500,000)

Sure there's a lot of red states in that list, but Iowa and New Hampshire themselves both skew to the right also, and there are some very nice blue states in there - Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont, even New Mexico is heading blue now, isn't it?

It would be a civic treat for political activists on both sides of the party divide. More regional diversity, which is a good thing. More opportunity for people who want to take part in the campaign when they can still make an impact.

We can't do a one-day primary, where only Mike Bloomberg (if not Bill Gates) could afford to run. We can't ban TV ads (there is that first amendment thingy, especially about political speech). I appreciate the dramatic impact of a "reality"-style off-the-island, who's-going-home-this-week scenario, but again I can't see it happening, how can you enforce it? (You still think you should be President, but you can't run anymore? No Campaign For You!)

Keep the system, but switch up the "Iowa" and "New Hampshire" roles each go-round! Whadya think?

[meldroc]

26. I've seen another system that does something like this.

The way it works, there are ten weeks of primaries. For the first week, primaries are held that decide eight votes at the national convention. The second week, primaries will decide sixteen votes at the convention. Then, 32 votes are decided in the third week. Lather, rinse, repeat (not necessarily sticking to powers of two) until after ten weeks, all the primaries are held. The order of the states' primaries are randomized, but because the first few weeks only decide a few votes at the primaries, small states will tend to go first, though after three or four weeks, enough votes come into play that big states like California can come into play (can, doesn't mean will...)

This way, New Hampshire and Iowa don't have undue influence. One year, one state will have the first primaries, the next election, the same state might be last. Seems a little more fair, doesn't it?

[fuzzyball]

25. Same day promaries will be a huge advantage for the big money guy.

[Orangepeel]

27. I wish the candidates would come talk to ME, but at least this way they talk to SOME voters

I've lived in three states and my primary vote has never counted for anything. It would be nice if it did.

But, the reality is that the options turn out to be: 1) the primary is decided soley by television advertising in big blue states or 2) primary candidates engage in "retail politics" and actually talk to real voters in a few small states.

[MiniMe]

28. Because all of the small states would be totally ignored

The politicians would only focus on the biggest states with the most votes. The way the system is supposed to work is that by spreading it out, it gave the candidates time to visit every state. Having everything on 1 day makes commercials and soundbites too important.