Primaries on the Same Day

[Homo Erectus]

Anyone know why the primaries are spread out the way they are? Why should states like New Hampshire and Iowa and Michigan have so much say in which candidates are chosen by their parties as our presidential candidates? If a guy like Fred Thompson or Joe Biden had significant support in the West, but lost big in the early primaries, he'd be toast, and feel heat to throw in the towel and endorse one of the front-runners. Why don't we have all the primaries on the same day? It'd be nice to know my vote had some ramifications as to who the presidential candidates end up being. Any thoughts on this?

[MikeWaters]

because the nomination is a process. and hopefully cream rises.

you want the nominee to be battle-hardened. You want the worst dirt to be out there. You run a huge risk if you select a guy in just one day.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Homo Erectus

Anyone know why the primaries are spread out the way they are? Why should states like New Hampshire and Iowa and Michigan have so much say in which candidates are chosen by their parties as our presidential candidates? If a guy like Fred Thompson or Joe Biden had significant support in the West, but lost big in the early primaries, he'd be toast, and feel heat to throw in the towel and endorse one of the front-runners. Why don't we have all the primaries on the same day? It'd be nice to know my vote had some ramifications as to who the presidential candidates end up being. Any thoughts on this?

Tradition. That is why the primaries are the way they are. And since that is the only reason, that is why many states (like Michigan and Nevada) are now trying to buck the system to get more pull.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tradition. That is why the primaries are the way they are. And since that is the only reason, that is why many states (like Michigan and Nevada) are now trying to buck the system to get more pull.

LOL. You are full of it again.

[MikeWaters]

Here's one explanation, homo erectus.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-arent-al...e-same-day.htm

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Here's one explanation, homo erectus.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-arent-al...e-same-day.htm

No, those are reasons why keeping the primaries on different days might be good. Those aren't the reasons primaries ARE on different days. They ARE on different days because of tradition. That is how it started, and that is how we keep doing it. I.e., you are full of it. The reasons you gave are post hoc rationalizations, not reasons the system evolved the way it did.

[MikeWaters]

There is no provision for the role of political parties in the United States Constitution, as political parties did not develop until the early 19th century. Before 1820, Democratic-Republican members of Congress would nominate a single candidate from their party. That system collapsed in 1824, and by 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination was a national convention.[13]

Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent. Progressive Era reformers looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary in which the delegates to the National Convention were required to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1912, twelve states either selected delegates in primaries, used a preferential primary, or both. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back and from 1936 to 1968, 13 or 14 states used them. (Ware p 248)

The primary received its first major test in the 1912 election pitting incumbent President William Howard Taft against challengers Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt proved the most popular candidate, but as most primaries were non-binding "preference" shows and held in only fourteen of the-then forty-eight states, the Republican nomination went to Taft, who controlled the convention.

Seeking to boost voter turnout, New Hampshire simplified its ballot access laws in 1949. In the ensuing "beauty contest" of 1952, Republican Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated his broad voter appeal by out polling the favored Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican." Also, Democrat Estes Kefauver defeated incumbent President Harry S. Truman, leading the latter to abandon his campaign for another term.[14] The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary has since become a widely-observed test of candidates' viability.

The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey II 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.[15]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ential_primary

So there is no rationale. No reason for anything about the current system. It is merely tradition. Ok. Thanks for the insight.

[Homo Erectus]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

because the nomination is a process. and hopefully cream rises.

you want the nominee to be battle-hardened. You want the worst dirt to be out there. You run a huge risk if you select a guy in just one day.

I agree, but wouldn't you prefer to be part of the "battle hardening" process, and not just an afterthought?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Homo Erectus

I agree, but wouldn't you prefer to be part of the "battle hardening" process, and not just an afterthought?

there ought to be a lottery, where different states are moved up to the front every cycle.

but as you know, when there are entrenched interests and powers, things don't change. Look at the BCS and the bowls.

This process is not about getting the best president. It's making sure that the right palms are greased.

[Homo Erectus]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Here's one explanation, homo erectus.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-arent-al...e-same-day.htm

Thanks MW. I certainly agree with the points made, but my feeling is that the irrelevance of the voters in the 30-odd states with primaries after Super Tuesday is a bigger issue than "building momentum" or logistical issues.