Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
What does moving up the presidential primaries do ?
What does moving up the presidential primaries do ?
Good things? .. i have an assignment on this and i dont quite understand it .. i thought moving them BACK would be better. My teacher told me opposite. =[
3 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
In previous presidential elections New Hampshire was the first state that the primaries were held. Because of this, most presidential hopefuls did the majority of their campaigning in this state. If a canidate didn't do well in New Hampshire they would often not continue because of the cost of running campaigns. This caused a few states to "choose" who would be the ultimate presidential candidates for the November elections.
Moving up the elections would make candidates campaign in all the states. It may cause back lash, by preventing some candidates from running, based on cost. However, it will give nation the ability to actually choose from all the candidates as to who will run in the November elections.
- hickoryLv 44 years ago
No. There could prefer to be a regulation to reduce the starting up and the acceptable of primaries to eight and four months (respectively) in the previous the nationwide presidential elections. to maintain the impression of smaller states they ought to easily accept a decision to elect the date for primaries. The state with the bottom inhabitants could opt for first (some thing such as the NBA or NFL draft). no more effective than 2 states could have primaries on an same day. no more effective than 7 states could have primaries in a unmarried week. this can ensure that primaries take a minimum of two months.
- 1 decade ago
I agree with the above writer, and would also like to comment that for my state of California, we have always been irrated that we hold 20% of the people in the country yet in the end are never a factor in the presidential primaries. This is why California has moved itself up further in the primaries...a week after New Hampshire i think, putting CA in its rightful spot as the most important state in the country.
The downside is that tiny states like New Hampshire got a lot of 1 on 1 face time with the candidates, this made them the most informed voters in the country...in a way you could rely on them to get it right....now that bigger states are moving forward candidates will have less 1 on 1 time...doing bigger rallies instead, so it will take longer to really know who they are