A non-American has a question about your primaries:

[glarius]

Why aren't all the primaries, across the country, held on the same day? Wouldn't that make the outcome in the delegate count clear on that day?
Wouldn't that eliminate all the confusion and uncertainty that is happening as a result of the way it is done now? Perhaps there is something I don't understand about the primary system, but that's how it looks to me. :shrug:

[Liberalboy]

Then states don't get there chance for 15 minutes of fame

It makes sense, but that's why it will never happen...

[Taverner]

1. I agree

That would be nice...

[Patsy Stone]

2. If there were a national primary

it would be nearly impossible to campaign with the amount of people you'd have to reach. Also, no one would pay attention to states like Delaware or North Dakota because everyone would concentrate on the larger urban areas and more populous states. Sort of the same reason we have the confounded Electoral College. Add in states' rights, and there you have it. My .02

[glarius]

4. I think I understand.....sort of........

n/t

[annabanana]

11. The States administer the polling, not the federal gov't.

They would fight Federal meddling in their sandbox. It would be very very difficult to get the kind of cooperation necessary to make the kind of change that you would suggest... Although it would be the logical thing to do.

Also, Tuesdays that are not holidays is not logical either..

[rucky]

3. Money. n/t

[Fresh_Start]

5. lots more money to be made if they spread them out

months

[newmajority]

6. This entire primary process has existed less than 40 years

And it gets increasingly more fucked up with each election season.

A national primary, or at least a small handful of regional primaries would be a better solution. After removing corporate financing from the process, so all candidates start out with a level playing field, of course.

[Whisp]

7. it would be very difficult to campaign 50 at one charge instead

of nibbles of.

I can't imagine the stress behind what they do now. even in nibbles.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Then only the best-known, best-funded candidates

would ever have a shot.

Campaigns would be run out of an office, instead of out in the field.

[Abacus]

9. The idea with the current system

is to let campaigns with less money have a chance by starting with small states representing different regions.

[thunder rising]

10. WE CANNOT AFFORD A NATIONAL PRIMARY!!! Nor does it make sense

If a national primary were held the campaigns would start as early as 2 years before the primary, just so they could at least visit most of the states. That system would discourage upstarts like Obama in favor of the DLC established Billary.

The schedule is supposed to use a few small states with a few delegates as a stage for the rest of the country. The fact is that Americans don't know that the primary is not over after NH or Super Tuesday; as this primary has shown.

The problem is that with long campaigns with no partial results would be ignored until 2 weeks before the polls. That's a lot of ignorant people voting.

This method allows partial results to build up support and prune the field. It allows more people to get involved and as pointed out above, the traditional Democratic election strategy would prevail, North East, FL CA and a couple of more or the 50% + 1 instead of 50 states.

There are many news articles today about Obama in Omaha Nebraska that has not seen a primary candidate since Johnson.

[NoPasaran]

12. By spreading the process over several months

The idea is that we see how the candidates perform all around the country and hopefully we end up with the strongest. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

And don't let the animosity you see expressed on this board fool you. There are plenty of us political junkies who appreciate the sport of the whole thing. We love the surprises and confusion. Even if our chosen candidate/team doesn't win, we love to see an exciting match played out to the finish.