I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but was nudged into actually making a post about it because of this post below.
Is there any legitimate reason why we don’t hold presidential primaries/caucuses for the entire nation on the same day? It would makee more sense to me in so many ways.
I believe the thinking is that by having some small states go first, candidates with relatively little money have a chance to connect with voters, before they need the massive funding for the big races. The idea is that a win in Iowa or New Hampshire will give the fund raising boost needed to compete in New York, Florida, California, etc. Of course, the system breaks down if a big state decides to have an early primary anyway.
One nice thing about the current system is that it allows (in theory) a grassroots candidate to build up support without having a massive amount of money from the start.
Edit - Beaten to the punch.
See, I knew there was a reason. I’m still not sure if that outweighs the cons, but it’s nice to know there is a reason.
Thanks!
Seems like this wasn’t the case with Ron Paul. I’ve never seen so much grassroots hype (well if you consider the internet “grassroots”), yet he got nowhere. I think it’s probably due to the fact that people on the internet aren’t as likely to vote as senior citizens.
But with regards to the OP, it’s my understanding it has to do with the fact that you cannot campaign in 50 states for prior to one big primary, you’d have to start a year in advance and raise $100 million just to have a shot at being elected. And what happens if you get a 4-way tie in the 50-state primary?
I also think it has to do with “testing grounds”. Iowa is supposed to represent the midwest, followed by New Hampshire representing the northeast, both of which have smaller populations which makes campaigning cheaper and easier. I think most of the primaries heading up to Super Tuesday are sample sets so that candidates can build momentum. Without momentum, we would definitely have multiple ties. If you were to run McCain, Romney, Guliani, Thompson, Paul, and whoever else all on one day in 50 states, you’d have chaos when the numbers came in because the highest ranking would still only be 20% of the votes or so.
Two other recent threads on the same subject.
Why aren’t the primaries held on the same day for all states?
What are the reasons/justifications for drawn out primaries . . .
They come to most of the same conclusions.
:smack: D’oh, I should have known it was asked before. Sorry for re-posting basically the same question. Thanks again to all who have answered.
Candidates would campaign only in the most populous states, and ignore the less populous.
I think that the hype was magnified by a relatively small group of supporters. For example, it’s pretty easy to “stuff the ballot box”, so to speak, of the online polls.
The Ron Paul flurry was a classic case of selection effect.
So? That’s what happens here. None of the candidates for the last round of State or Federal elections campaigned outside the Capital Cities and Major Regional Centres at all from what I saw; they do most of it by TV and radio as far as I can tell.