Primaries all in one day.

[iamthebandfanman]

is there a reason this isnt possible?

to have a GE style primary i mean?

not suggesting im for or against it, just curious as to if it was possible.

[BklynChick]

1. i think regional might be a good proposal, it does take time for them to campaign, have people get

to know them and them get to know people.

[lisa58]

2. It would be really difficult the less financed candidate to compete...

...I think five or six regional primaries would be an option.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Bucky]

4. It places all the emphasis for getting to know the candidates on big media outlets

How's that whole MSM thing working for ya? Me, not so much.

The whole justification for small states going early is that they have what's known as "retail" politics. That is, a relatively small population is able to get to know and get to vet the various candidates, meeting many of them several times and taking the time to study and decide on nuances like ability to handle tough & unexpected questions or look beyong the TV mask and really gauge the sincerity of the candidates.

Small states voting early is why fat media-geared candidates like Romney & Giuliani tanked and a smart, capable, less bullshitty candidate like McCain won. I think it's an important weeding process in our system. I don't think it should be the same two states over and over, but the advantages of the system are manifest.

If it all occurs on one day in all the states at once, you'd have candidates who are less like Carter and more like Reagan. Our democracy needs the occasional Jimmy Carter just to keep us honest. In this year the result of such a system would have given us a presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. The winners would be tested solely based on who raised the most money, who spun the best media buys, who was best networked with the powers that be in corporate America.

Instead, by spacing out the contests as we do, we get an election between Barack Obama and John McCain. Frankly, I think we got the better election.

[WeDidIt]

5. Let he who has the most money and name recognition win!

HEck, anybody rich enough would be able to buy the rpesidency in that one.

[SoonerPride]

6. Terrible idea. Most money and well known name wins.

That's not the best way to select the best candidate.

[FSogol]

7. Nah, have a series of 10 regional Primaries spread out over a 4 month period

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. It is certainly possible

but it is a BAD FUCKING IDEA.

The whole reason for have disparate primaries over a period of time, front-loaded with small states, is to give poorly funded and unknown candidates an even playing field in which they can promote their ideas and platforms.

One 'super-primary' would give all the advantage to the one candidate who has the biggest corporate warchest, and can afford to buy television time in the 20-25 biggest markets all at once.

If we want to be the party of corporate interests - by all means. If we want to be the party of democratic ideals, open government, and democracy - never.

[XemaSab]

9. If that had happened this year, Hillary would be our nominee

Think about it.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Then candidates would spend all of their time in the 4 or 5 biggest states.

[anonymous171]

11. Candidates with money and name recognition would be heavily favored.

I think that the first couple of contests should be caucuses in order to give the activist candidates a competing edge.

[Connie_Corleone]

12. The one with name recognition would win the nomination.

Not a good way to pick a nominee.

[CaptJasHook]

13. Regional may be good. However I am opposed to same day

It will only reproduce annointed candidates. Imagine if we hadn't had the entire campaign season for Hillary to expose herself to what she is really about.

Extended campaigns help the candidate prove their worthiness or lack thereof.

[jobendorfer]

14. 5-6 "zoned" primaries

5-6 "zoned" primaries.
I say "zoned" because I do not want regional contests that have say, one electorally rich state mixed with 7-8 electorally poor states.
So maybe we should lump all the electorally rich states together into one primary, and then divide the remaining 40-odd states by region.
The underlying idea here is to force the campaigns to actually work in all 50 states. (If California, Oregon, and Washington are lumped
into a regional primary, the candidates will work Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, and maybe, Seattle.)

Spaced at 2 week intervals, starting in May or even June.
(Other countries manage to hold national elections over the space of a couple of months ... )

The order of the primaries should be initially chosen by lottery, then rotate, so that
each "zone" is the first to vote in every "n"th election.
Thus eliminating the Iowa/New Hampshire filter effect.

J.