# Resolved: All state primary elections should be on the same day **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2007, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-all-state-primary-elections-should-be-on-the-same-day/396045 "2007-03-15T15:34:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-all-state-primary-elections-should-be-on-the-same-day/396045/21 "2007-03-15T21:18:14Z")
Regarding **Polycarp** ’s concern for “residual state sovereignty,” I think the important thing here isn’t state sovereignty, but _party_ sovereignty. The entity that’s choosing a nominee isn’t a succession of states, it’s a _political party_. And they, not the states, should be the ones deciding how their nomination process works. The reason why it’s not like that, I assume, is that the states, not the parties, pay the cost of putting on a primary. The only tool the party has is to say, “if you schedule your primary for a date we don’t like, we don’t have to let it count - you’ll have a ‘beauty contest’ primary, and we’ll select your delegates in a caucus.” That, however, is a pretty weak threat in most cases. Is the Democratic Party going to tell California or some other big state that if their primary is on Feb. 5, it’s not going to count? Not likely. So we wind up with the crazy system we have because the states, not the parties, are driving the process. State sovereignty is the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-all-state-primary-elections-should-be-on-the-same-day/396045/22 "2007-03-15T22:34:51Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] IMHO, the way to ensure that the large states have an impact, without the costs of campaigning there dominating the picture, is to save all the large and most of the medium-sized states, encompassing, say, 70% of the delegates, for the last day of the primary season. That way, the game would still be afoot when the last state voted. [/QUOTE] I’d never really thought about this before reading this thread, but as I did, until I got to this post, **RTFirefly** ’s general idea was basically taking shape. Why not divide the states into general categories by population size (or by an algorithm covering both population and geography; it’d be a lot easier to canvas Rhode Island than Montana), and establish primary pools, where a couple of small states get to be the bellwether, then a few more small states go plus a medium or two, then more of the medium states, then the large ones at the end? Say, this year, Vermont and Alaska go first; then Wyoming, North Dakota, and Hawaii; later, Utah, Oregon, and Indiana get their say; and Illinois, New York, Texas, California, and Florida all go last, keeping the whole enchilada in play down to the wire. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-all-state-primary-elections-should-be-on-the-same-day/396045/23 "2007-03-15T22:39:06Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] State sovereignty is the problem. [/quote] Maybe sorta, but only because the states that currently come out ahead are so dogged in keeping it that way. If sovereignty confers power on individual states in contests against one another, it stands to reason that the ones who get shafted under the current system could have some say, if they really wanted it. Seems like a wash to me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-all-state-primary-elections-should-be-on-the-same-day/396045/24 "2007-03-16T04:05:34Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] IMHO, the way to ensure that the large states have an impact, without the costs of campaigning there dominating the picture, is to save all the large and most of the medium-sized states, encompassing, say, 70% of the delegates, for the last day of the primary season. That way, the game would still be afoot when the last state voted. And have the small-to-medium-sized states have primaries strung out from possibly June of the year before, to May of the year of, the election, with the order chosen on a rotating basis. [/QUOTE] I think I like this idea - except the starting a year and a half before the election part. They’d start campaigning the week after the previous election then. About the only positive I can see is more material for The Daily Show. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2007, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-all-state-primary-elections-should-be-on-the-same-day/396045/25 "2007-03-26T05:10:03Z")
There’s something to be said for having the primaries as late as possible. Ideally, I think I’d want my state primary a week or two before the convention, when there’s been a lot of chance to tear the front-runner down. Why commit delegates so early? Unless you mean them to be faithless when they find out about the past of their guy… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-all-state-primary-elections-should-be-on-the-same-day/396045.md?page=1)