national primary?

[WalterMitty]

isnt it time for a national primary?


let us just have a national primary, sometime in april or may of a presidential election year to decide the candidates.

it would save us time and a whole lot of silliness.  most importantly, it would save us from the frontloading and the endless arguments on why iowa and nh should/shouldnt come first.

[ian]

Amen.

[Erc]

As much as everyone would like it this way, it ain't gonna happen.

Why?

Well, as far as I can tell, there are three possible ways of doing this.

1) First-Past-The-Post:  Guy with the most votes wins.  Way too open to chance and insurgency (not that it isn't now, but it's even more so).  Also makes conventions completely pointless.

2) Proportional Allocation of Delegates...opposite problem of the first system.  Barring the existence of an incumbent or an extremely obvious candidate, no-one will win a majority.  Which means we're back to pre-1968 multi-ballot conventions, which aren't pretty.

3) Some other sort of proportional voting system that locks in delegates to a second, third, fourth choice, etc.  But this would open the door for proportional representation / preference voting in other elections, which neither of the major parties want.

[nini2287]

Aren't conventions relatively pointless now anyway?

[Erc]

Aren't conventions relatively pointless now anyway?

Well, yes, but they like to make everyone think they aren't.

Get rid of delegates entirely, and the facade goes away.

[Blerpiez]

As much as everyone would like it this way, it ain't gonna happen.

Why?

Well, as far as I can tell, there are three possible ways of doing this.

1) First-Past-The-Post:  Guy with the most votes wins.  Way too open to chance and insurgency (not that it isn't now, but it's even more so).  Also makes conventions completely pointless.

2) Proportional Allocation of Delegates...opposite problem of the first system.  Barring the existence of an incumbent or an extremely obvious candidate, no-one will win a majority.  Which means we're back to pre-1968 multi-ballot conventions, which aren't pretty.

3) Some other sort of proportional voting system that locks in delegates to a second, third, fourth choice, etc.  But this would open the door for proportional representation / preference voting in other elections, which neither of the major parties want.

I agree these would all be bad.  I don't want the candidates chosen by 25% of the party and I don't want them chosen by politicians in smoke-filled rooms either.  What I would do is schedule a few primaries for the first day of primaries, and have these rotate among selected states every cycle.

[Joe Republic]

2) Proportional Allocation of Delegates...opposite problem of the first system. Barring the existence of an incumbent or an extremely obvious candidate, no-one will win a majority. Which means we're back to pre-1968 multi-ballot conventions, which aren't pretty.

I actually like this idea.  Though I don't like the idea of multi-ballot conventions and 'smoke-filled-rooms', the whole system could be reformed.  Perhaps a preference-voting system at the convention?

In any case, there's the little matter of taking New Hampshire's only claim to fame away.  You know, the one that's set in stone by law.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Neither Party will give up on their conventions.  A week of uncontested national airtime is priceless to the campaigns.

[FerrisBueller86]

To the people who don't want everyone to vote on the same day:

Would you volunteer your state to be the last to vote during the next presidential primary season?

[Notre Dame rules!]

The current system, as ridiculous as it seems to be, actually promotes diversity of views. 

Had McCain had to compete with Bush on a 50 state basis, rather than concentrating solely on NH, he would never have had enough money to mount even a modest campaign.  He would have never become the darling of the left, as the left would only know him as a former war hero and not a 'maverick' GOP Senator, not the type they typically embrace.

Given the cost of mounting a modern campaign, the only Democrats who could possibly compete nationally would be Hillary and John Corzine.  Bayh, Feingold, and the rest of the also rans would't stand a chance, and probably wouldn't even try.   

[True Democrat]

Why not have regional primaries, where the region to go first changes every time?  Or, we could have random states go first.

[Notre Dame rules!]

That's pretty reasonable, though it would still be more prohibitively expensive for lower tier candidates, especially if the campaign was to start first in either the West Coast or Northeast.

[PBrunsel]

I oppose taking power away from Iowa.

New Hampshire and ourselves have little to no recognition when it is not a Presidential Election year!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I oppose taking power away from Iowa.

New Hampshire and ourselves have little to no recognition when it is not a Presidential Election year!

Iowa damn well deserves to lose their nominee picking abilities after this last election. Let it be a bunch of states together and have them change from election to election.

[PBrunsel]

I oppose taking power away from Iowa.

New Hampshire and ourselves have little to no recognition when it is not a Presidential Election year!

Iowa damn well deserves to lose their nominee picking abilities after this last election. Let it be a bunch of states together and have them change from election to election.

Hey it's not our fault that the Democrats had a bunch of cruddy choices in 2004.