Who wants there to be one simultaneous primary election day in a states?

[octopus]

@Omar_Little

I wish we could force all states to hold their primary/caucuses on a single simultaneous day, like we do the general election.

Let the party nominations all be decided on a single day.

The presidential campaign cycle is sooooooooooo long and unnecessary.

Parties can make their own rules for selecting their candidates.

[Loopus]

@Miller

I live in California, which is fantastic, because by the time we have our primaries, they don’t matter any more. I violently oppose any attempt to change this system. I’ve heard what Iowa is like in the run up to the primaries, and I don’t want any part of that clown show.

Since California isn’t a swing state, I guess you don’t get any attention during the general election either. Just like Texas. Pretty nice, eh? Of course, we pay for it by having to cast votes that don’t matter.

[coremelt]

@Telemark

A single nationwide primary would pretty much ensure that the candidate with the most money to get their message out would win over any newcomer. One of the biggest arguments for small states like Iowa and NH to have early primaries/caucuses is that it allows (some might say requires) retail politics and it allows smaller market players to get a voice.

This argument doesn’t make any sense to me since no other country in the world has the amazingly long drawn out primary system stretching over six months. Also the person with the most money doesn’t always win, especially in this day of internet and social media. There’s plenty of ways of a candidate with less money backing them can get their message out as Bernie Sanders campaign is proving this election cycle.

Also, the proper solution to this, is proper reforms to campaign financing to level the playing field between candidates.

[Northern_Piper]

@BobLibDem

The current system works, though the first two states are very much atypical of the nation as a whole and we could find better labs to test the candidates in.

“Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?”

[DinoR]

Things actually did tighten up some in this cycle with more stringent penalities on states trying to move earlier and conve3ntions also being earlier. The month of March accounts for 52.53% of Democratic and 59.18% of Republican delegates. By the end of April primary season is almost over in all but the tightest races with 74.64 and 79.69% of delegates selected cumulatively. Most of both races wrap up in about 8 weeks of March and April primaries. The hype and talk has been going on for far, far longer than the actual voting phase will take. Changing the primary dates won’t just change the hype fest in advance but will sacrifice some of the advantages that come from the rolling schedule.

Even more important than picking a nominee I see the period as being a time when the coalitions we call parties get to adjust to the current distribution of their members. That internal negotiation (worked out in the process of multiple primaries culminating in the delegates selected being part of creating the new party platform) needs to happen somewhere. I think we lose that if we have a single primary day.

[Robot_Arm]

@Northern_Piper

“Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?”

I think so Piper, but me and Megyn Kelly… I mean, what would the children look like?

Narf!

[John_Mace]

@Miller

I live in California, which is fantastic, because by the time we have our primaries, they don’t matter any more. I violently oppose any attempt to change this system. I’ve heard what Iowa is like in the run up to the primaries, and I don’t want any part of that clown show.

@Loopus

Since California isn’t a swing state, I guess you don’t get any attention during the general election either. Just like Texas. Pretty nice, eh? Of course, we pay for it by having to cast votes that don’t matter.

Yep, yep, and yep. That allow us to concentrate on more important things-- like leading the rest of the country, kicking and screaming, into the future.

[astorian]

I’d like to have LESS democracy.

Seriously, I think we should go back to the old “smoke filled rooms” and let the party hierarchies pick the Presidential candidates. That would make the whole process shorter and less expensive.

[Sunny_Daze]

I’m with the “shorten the whole dang thing” group. And Miller. Because there’s nothing I like more than being meaningless.

My proposal would be: no primaries before June or later than September 15. Rotate the assignments for which state has votes when, if we want to get all “fair” about it. 6 weeks for the general sounds about right. Nostalgia for the type of down home campaigning we see in Iowa and NH is no reason to continue to maintain a broken system.

[Saint_Cad]

I think a good compromise might be to have the first day of primaries be four disparate states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Arizona. That way the future of the prrimaries is not dependent on one or two non-representative states.