# Why are the primaries scheduled the way they are?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 2, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704 "2008-04-02T19:23:11Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/1 "2008-04-02T19:23:11Z")
Apologies if this is a naive question, but why exactly are the primaries conducted on the schedule that they are? Who is perceived as benefitting from a process that is so long, with such substantial gaps? It seems to be primarily styled in a manner to unnecessarily increase the amount of money that must be solicited and spent. And it doesn’t seem styled to direct the flow of public interest in any predictable manner.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/2 "2008-04-02T21:09:10Z")
Short answer: The state legislatures did it.
[Long answer:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History)
> [@](#):
>
> The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination despite primary victories and other shows of support for Senator Eugene McCarthy, running against Humphrey on a strong anti-Vietnam War platform. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries.
>
> With the broadened use of the primary system, states have tried to increase their influence in the nomination process. One tactic has been to create geographic blocs to encourage candidates to spend time in a region. Vermont and Massachusetts attempted to stage a joint New England primary on the first Tuesday of March, but New Hampshire refused to participate so it could retain its traditional place as the first primary. The first successful regional primary was Super Tuesday of March 8, 1988, in which nine Southern states united in the hope that the Democrats would select a candidate in line with Southern interests.[14]
>
> Another trend is to stage earlier and earlier primaries, given impetus by Super Tuesday and the mid-1990s move (since repealed) of the California primary and its bloc of votes—the largest in the nation—from June to March. In order to retain its tradition as the first primary in the country (and adhere to a state law which requires it to be), New Hampshire’s primary has moved forward steadily, from early March to early January.
A more orderly, systematic and **shorter** primary process would be better – but who is to bell the cat? Congress has no jurisdiction here.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/3 "2008-04-02T21:26:49Z")
The primary season _ended_ in early June back in the ‘olden days,’ that is to say, before the [McGovern Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGovern-Fraser_Commission) reforms. The main change to the _length_ of the calendar has been the _beginning_ of the season: NH used to be at the beginning of _March_. Iowa wants to be the first caucus, NH wants to be the first primary, but so do other states as well. So anytime another state moves its primary or caucus earlier than those states, they move theirs up to be earlier than the interloper.
This is why the DNC decided to allow only a few primaries and caucuses ahead of a fixed date, and penalize those states that violated that rule: to prevent a seemingly infinite regress of the beginning of the primary season back to sometime in the middle of the year before the election.
---
### Author:  [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2008, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/4 "2008-04-02T23:04:34Z")
[Is there a logical reason why all of the presidential primaries aren’t held on the same day?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=459814&highlight=primaries)
[Why aren’t the primaries held on the same day for all states?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=457965&highlight=primaries)
[What are the reasons/justifications for drawn-out primaries?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=453837)
---
### Author:  [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/5 "2008-04-03T13:51:40Z")
Yeah, I read such articles, but still didn’t quite figure out who has ultimate control over the process, and why they let it develop as it has.
I mean, as it is, they are all from early Jan til early June. So presumably, there is a set “season.” A beginning and ending date, as it were, within which the states can schedule them.
I understand (kinda) why many states may all want to be “first” - but I don’t understand who benefits from the first primaries being in January rather than - say - March. Or, if someone decided there is merit to having primaries begin 11 months before the general election, then why not move the “closing” date up as well, and have them all end in April. Is whichever state votes last saying “No way we’re gonna have a primary until June!”
It just seems like the system we have is the worst of all possible worlds, with the primary benefits of encouraging spending as much money as possible, and distract incumbent candidates from the business of running the government as long as possible (unless that is the goal!)
And it seems weird to have this sizeable “gap” in the middle of the primaries. Unless someone can explain to me why it is a “good thing” to allow the candidates and voters to regroup, carefuly reassess things, debate Obama’s bowling prowess, etc.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2008, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/6 "2008-04-03T16:38:18Z")
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Yeah, I read such articles, but still didn’t quite figure out who has ultimate control over the process, and why they let it develop as it has.
[/quote]
The parties, at least in theory, have control over the process. However, the states run and pay for primaries, so they’re the ones who decide when they hold them.
The current MI/FL imbroglio demonstrates the difficulties involved in the parties’ actual exercise of their theoretical control over the primary calendar.
> [@](#):
>
> I mean, as it is, they are all from early Jan til early June. So presumably, there is a set “season.” A beginning and ending date, as it were, within which the states can schedule them.
The ending has been fixed at some point in the first week or so of June since Lord knows when. That’s when the primaries ended in 1964 (the earliest year I remember how the primaries played out), and ever since, and probably for some years before.
> [@](#):
>
> I understand (kinda) why many states may all want to be “first” - but I don’t understand who benefits from the first primaries being in January rather than - say - March.
Nobody, really. It’s just that it’s hard to prevent the competition to be first having the consequence of an increasingly early beginning to the primary season.
> [@](#):
>
> then why not move the “closing” date up as well, and have them all end in April. Is whichever state votes last saying “No way we’re gonna have a primary until June!”
I’m sure the handful of remaining states left their primaries in the late April to early June period out of sheer inertia.
There is one rationale I can think of for a longer primary season than they had 40 years ago: more primaries. Back in the 1960s and earlier, I think maybe six or eight states would typically have primaries. Now, of course, every state either has a primary, or a caucus that’s a wide-open event, rather than a bunch of state party bosses in a room.
But I don’t think that’s a strong rationale. There’s really no good reason why the end of the calendar couldn’t be pushed 4-6 weeks earlier. Maybe the Dems should try that next time - they could conclude their primaries by the end of April, and hold their convention in early June.
> [@](#):
>
> It just seems like the system we have is the worst of all possible worlds
The old system was worse. Hubert Humphrey nominated despite winning not a single primary? The current system is confusing, irrational, and too damned long, but it’s far better than the old one.
A good part of the ‘too damned long’ aspect, though, is due to the media’s tuning in absurdly early. It seemed to me that even during the first half of 2007, an inordinate amount of attention was being paid to the early stages of the race, compared to 2003, 1999, 1995, etc. 2003 is a weak comparison, because there was a war starting up, but I don’t recall the upcoming Presidential election getting nearly as much play in early 1999, and the big story in early 1995 was Newt & Co. taking over Congress.
Oddly enough, the comparable story of Pelosi, Reid, and the Dems taking over Congress in 2007 seemed to have to fight for coverage with the Presidential campaigns. I remember the Washington Post’s Outlook section the Sunday after the 2006 midterms. I fully expected to read volumes about what the Dem takeover meant, and what Pelosi etc. would try to do with their new power. Instead, I was greeted with a “Hillary v. Obama” cover.
And there’s not much we can do about the media. It’s that pesky “First Amendment” thingy they seem to think is such a big deal. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/7 "2008-04-03T17:57:23Z")
Thanks for the explanation.
Seems a kinda - mmm - odd system for something that is so important.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2008, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/8 "2008-04-03T19:32:03Z")
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Thanks for the explanation.
Seems a kinda - mmm - odd system for something that is so important.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. A group of second-graders could organize a better, more rational system.
---
### Author:  [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2008, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-primaries-scheduled-the-way-they-are/443704/9 "2008-04-03T19:38:01Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I agree. A group of second-graders could organize a better, more rational system.
[/QUOTE]
But they couldn’t get it enacted by 50 state legislatures.