A question about the primaries?

[INTELBYTES]

I don't consider myself a political novice, but I have always wondered why each state has a different date for choosing a nominee. Why is it not like the General Election where everyone in the Country votes on the same day.

It would seem to me that if Dean came out ahead in January in Iowa and New Hampshire,:( it would indirectly effect the voting attitude of the rest of the Country. By the time Texas had their primary in March, those that may have voted for a different candidate might just stay at home sensing too much momentum going for whoever the front runner may be.

Another problem I see is that the potential candidates have to do most of their "sucking up" in the states that are first to have their primaries. For the reasons I listed above, they want to be seen as the front runners early on so they neglect for the most part the states that have them later in the spring.

Is there a particular reason it is done this way? Can it be changed? Does anyone else but me so the problem with this?
:shrug:

[bryant69]

1. There have been a lot of efforts to change it

Admittedly a lot of those efforts have come from other states who want the special status conferred on New Hampshire and Iowa.

Ever notice how New England is full of commies and hippies and egg heads with the notable exception of New Hampshire which is a noble bastion of true American values?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[picus9]

2. Primary Voters can only be those of the same party as the candidate.

They do not include 'independent' voters or those of the other party, so they are not always 100% accurate. Also, despite your protests, which are valid - especially the 'sucking up' one, primaries are part of the political tradition of the US.

Furthermore, it gives states like IOWA and New Hampshire which are extremely political, but not extremely populated (hence they have few electoral votes) a chance to have the candidates come around their way and campaign. I personally think it is exciting.

Also, since it is a statewide thing, the people in a state which have a later primary are going to go out and vote on their primary date regardless of what happens in Iowa. Some people may be influence by media coverage without looking into the issues come election day, but those uninformed voters aren't going out there on Primary day, most don't even know what it is.

[sandnsea]

5. Primary voters can be independents

Different states have different rules about primary voting. But New Hampshire definitely has independent voters which I think is party of the reason Dean is leading there. He's picked up the anti-war and pro-gun vote. Weird combo, eh?

[picus9]

7. Yeah, you're right. I just looked it up.

Heh. I was going on my state's laws.

That is a wierd combo. A lot of libertarians like myself up there maybe I should move.

Check it out:

http://www.freestateproject.org/index.jsp

[INTELBYTES]

6. Your reply helps.

I didn't see it that way before, but it does make sense that the states with the fewer electoral votes would be passed up for the obvious other states if it was on the same day. In that sense I do see the benefit.

On the other hand, I still see how it might influence the other states later in the spring. I guess it's just a balancing act. Anyway thanks for the perspective. It anwered my question.
:toast:

[HFishbine]

8. Another reason

It negates, to some extent, believe it or not, the advantages of money. If candidates had to conduct a national campaign all at once, it would be extremely expensive -- prohibitive for all but the wealthiest candidates. Being able to focus on two or three states allows a campaign the opportunity to conduct "retail" politics, lots of hand shaking, town hall meetings, that kind of stuff. It allows a campaing a chance to build some momentum.

There may be some positives to having prinaries all on the same day, but there are some disadvantages too.

[DUreader]

3. This Year Is Supposed To Be Different, No More 'Winner Take All'

In Theory, Later States Will Have More Import.

[HereSince1628]

4. I don't know the historical development but

it would seem to me that everyone doing primaries and caucuses on one day would mean that candidates would have less opportunity to meet and greet real voters in person. The result would be more reliance on campaign organizations and the media to present candidates to the public.


Because "news" in the big cities more easily makes it onto the networks there might be a tendency for campaign to strike states like Iowa and New Hampshire from the lists of places that would be visited by candidates.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Can't be changed much.

New Hampshire has some sort of law on the books saying they'll be the first. If another state sets a primary before theirs, they automatically jump up a month.

Each state sets up its own primary rules, and who knows what they're thinking. Here in NJ, our primary is in June, when everything is pretty well settled. There are annual fights over this, and Republicans want an earlier primary, but the Democrats have kept it in the summer.

Part of the reason is to keep local primary and election season shorter, but the real reason is so that most of them don't have to go out on a limb too early.

[INTELBYTES]

12. Who get's to decide who goes first?

What if Texas decides January 1st? Is there anyone stopping them?

[TreasonousBastard]

13. No.

But New Hampshire will be on Christmas Day.

Stupid, but that's the way it works. Every state can do what it wants.

Fortunately, no one seems to want primaries any sooner than they already are.

[SheilaT]

10. It has to do with the way the nominee is selected

which is in the nominating convention, and only tangentially by the voters in the primaries and caucuses.

Keep in mind that, just as in the general election, you are not voting directly for the person you want to be the nominee or the next president, but for a slate of delegates and electors who will do the voting that counts.

I believe all the states now have caucuses or primaries, but that's only a relatively recent development. In the past the delegates were largely party faithful who were lobbied personally by the various candidates and persuaded to support a particular candidate at the nominating convention. That's pretty much the case today with the super delegates. But the greater number of delegates are selected through primaries and caucuses, and so the procedure seems more democratic.

Because the Democrats do not use a winner take all system (which I think the Republicans still do) it becomes important for a candidate to campaign in as many states as possible, and in a large field like this, the potential for a brokered convention exists.

Personally, I think that by some time in March one of the candidates will have enough delegates to be assured the nomination, and then we can all settle down to healing the wounds inflicted by each other and finding ways to unite against the nominee.

If I'm wrong and the delegate vote is well split among at least three or four of the candidates, then the one with the third or fourth most votes could easily become "king maker" and decide who the nominee will be, probably by getting the second slot on the ticket or a guarantee of an important cabinet post in the next administration, or by controlling some of the party platform planks.

[leyton]

11. Strategy

I think primary voters are somewhat strategic - in an general election, people vote for the candidate with the best ideas (or sometimes for the Republican) but in a primary, voters sometimes consider who can win. So if they can look at New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and the other primaries that have already happened, they have a good idea of who has the most support from the base. While this might not be the only determining factor in a vote, I think it's important in a primary.

I think there are benefits to having Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina first - these represent three important demographics for a Democrat: the rural Midwest, New England, and the South. So I can see why these might come first. But it sure would be nice if we could rotate which state comes first and gets the most attention. My state, NC, was lucky enough to host one of the 2000 debates in October but other than that we rarely get a candidate to come during the general election since it's not a swing state. In fact, this cycle, candidates have only come twice, as far as I know, to NC: John Edwards announced his campaign here in September, and a few candidates came for the South Carolina NAACP convention (held in Charlotte because they're boycotting South Carolina...). So I think we should rotate.

Alas.