With several states jockeying for position and moving their primaries earlier and earlier, and the fact that the (in the opinion of some) the race for the nomination is over by Super Tuesday (if not by the time New Hampshire has voted), I’m compelled to ask:
What is the potential downside to having voters in all 50 states cast their primary ballots on the same day? And who (if anyone) has the authority to make it so - is this a legislative concern, or the domain of the parties themselves?
[pointless aside]I believe the word you are looking for is “Caucuses”. I can’t remember the rule but it has something to do with whether the word is of Greek or Latin derivation.[/pointless aside]
As to your question nobody has the authority to make it happen. The Constitution leaves voting to the states themselves. I guess they could all get together and make it happen or we could have a constitutional convention to amend the constitution. As for why it would be a bad idea I have no idea.
The big downside is that it would be really expensive for the candidates. As it stands right now, most of the candidates have put most of their budgets and staff in Iowa and New Hampshire, because that’s where the first caucuses/primaries are. Tomorrow, all the candidates’ staffs are going to leave Iowa and go to another state and get ready for that primary.
Under your scenario, a candidate who wanted to compete everywhere would have to keep a staff in Iowa, and another in New Hampshire, and another in South Carolina, and another in Nevada, and so on. That means a lot more staff people, which means a lot more money.
Under your sistem, a candidate like Huckabee, for instance, who doesn’t have a lot of money, but who’s hoping to win Iowa and South Carolina, and then use the momentum from that to make him better known and raise money couldn’t do something like that.
It’s called “retail politics” and it’s such an incredibly beloved tradition among the political set that there’s almost no way it’ll ever be overthrown. The image of the candidate humbly sitting down to coffee and listening to the troubles of folks in tiny towns in NH and IA is too strong to break. And NH and IA themselves will never consent to it.
The only way of getting such a system in place would be for the RNC and DNC to force the states to do that. They’re really the only suprastate authority on such things. I’m sure you can see why such a thing would be extremely difficult. The downside, as mentioned, is the money thing…and that’s a monster of a reason.
The problem would be that the guy or gal with the most cash would win.
It would also be done and over with in one shot and the statement candidates voices would be drowned out. As it is now they can keep their party’s leaders feet to the fire on some issues that leaders would prefer to forget.
The system as it stands is frustratingly broken but change will be difficult. I feel we should tie it to the NCAA system and March Madness somehow.
Not like that hasn’t happened before. I remain convinced the only reason GWB won the nomination in 2000 was his ability to spend circles around everyone else. (To judge from the primary debates, he sure didn’t get it on the basis of perceived ability.)
I noticed while reading the paper this morning that Super Tuesday, at the beginning of February, has the potential for deciding the candidates. This bothers me. We would have a seven-month gap between candidate selection and the start of the general campaign (traditionally Labor Day). One helluva lot can happen in seven months.
If there was a national primary yesterday, the Democratic nominee would be Hillary. I rest my case.
I think you would almost have to have some type of runoff system in this case. If you had all 50 primaries on the same day, you could conceivably have 12 candidates in each party: 11 moderates and 1 extreme candidate. The moderates split the vote, and the extreme candidates win, so in November you have a fascist vs. a communist with your tax dollars propping them up…
Caucuses. “Caucus” is neither Latin nor Greek, there are no words in these languages that match it.
In fact, it may have come from an American Indian word.
For the etymology, the OED states:
Arose in New England: origin obscure.
Alleged to have been used in Boston U.S. before 1724; quotations go back to 1763. Already in 1774 Gordon (Hist. Amer. Rev.) could obtain no ‘satisfactory account of the origin of the name’. Mr. Pickering, in 1816, as a mere guess, thought it ‘not improbable that caucus might be a corruption of caulkers’, the word “meetings” being understood’. For this, and the more detailed statement quoted in Webster, there is absolutely no evidence beyond the similarity of sound; and the word was actually in use before the date (1770) of the event mentioned in Webster. Dr. J. H. Trumbull (Proc. Amer. Philol. Assoc. 1872) has suggested possible derivation from an Algonkin word cau´-cau-as´u, which occurs in Capt. Smith’s Virginia 23, as Caw-cawaassough ‘one who advises, urges, encourages’, from a vb. meaning primarily ‘to talk to’, hence ‘to give counsel, advise, encourage’, and ‘to urge, promote, incite to action’. For such a derivation there is claimed the general suitability of the form and sense, and it is stated that Indian names were commonly taken by clubs and secret associations in New England; but there appears to be no direct evidence.
Instant-runoff voting would avoid that result without the expense of a second election.