Wouldn't it be alot easier to hold the primary all across the nation on the same date? I think that some of the states who have the primary on a later date, are somewhat left out of the loop, since all the early states get all the action. So, to make it fair for everybody, why not hold the primary all at once, and so figure out who we send into the race?
Tmess2
Favorite Answer
The problem with holding all of the primaries at once is the number of candidates that would be involved.
Currently, the parties use primary elections to choose delegates to the conventions. Unless, they switched to a total votes choosing the nominees, holding all of the primaries at once substantially increases the chances that nobody would get a majority of the delegates. The result would be the nominee would be chosen entirely by behind the scenes negotiating between the leading candidates and the rest of the candidates.
The best solutions that I have seen so far involve limiting the number of dates for primaries and randomly spreading the states over those dates with a rotation system (e.g. first this time gets the fourth window in 2012). That way, each state gets a chance to go early and serve the "weeding out" function every so often. Each state also gets a chance to fall in the middle tier which essentially chooses between the final two or three.
stephen p
That suggestion comes up about every four years. I agree that it would somewhat "even the playing field" by making all the candidates work hard to win as many states as possible all at once, instead of concentrating their efforts on the early primaries and waiting to campaign hard in the later primaries until then see how well or how poorly they did in the early ones. I don't know if the "poorer" candidates could afford to spend their budgets all at once, but it's worth a try.
Anonymous
not only easier but will cut the money spent by more than 3/4, it would also open up the chance of the big money candidate not getting the party nomination all the time , so we can get a free man and not some slave to the corporations.we need campaign reform , until we get big money out of the campaigns we will never get our country back.
1. u can only donate to people u can vote for
2. no pac's, corporate, lobbyist, or foreign donations
3. must be us citizen to vote
4. unlimited donations but public list of the donors and how much they have given
5. 6 month campaign cycle
6. no donations to political parties, the politicians can give a part of there raised funds to their own parties ( cause you cant vote for parties, but for people.)
its a good start in the right direction
vote Ron Paul
the only wasted vote is for the status quo
thomasdavidhalbrook@yahoo.com
that is not the idea. it gives the candidates time to prepare. often the party in charge is mismanaging. the opposing party gets a slow build up to find out who the best opposition is, and then once the presidential candidate is chosen, the vice-presidential candidate is thoughtfully considered. the people themselves also participate all across the country. it insures involvement. i think there are things wrong with the system but the long drawn out primary structure is very efficient, and keeps the issues out in public. this is how these issues gradually led to the civil war, as conditions were so bad, major change was necessary.