Why aren't primaries/caucuses for 50 states held same day?

[5280]

Instead of having primaries and caucuses on multiple days for a couple states throughout January through June, why can't all the primaries be on the same day for all 50 states?

Lets say the primaries are held July 1st for all 50 states, and the DNC/RNC conventions are 1 month post primaries? Also, I think delegates should be abolished, and voting be done on a popular vote system.

I think this will make it easier to keep track of the entire political process before the general election.

[Joe Republic]

Because only the richest / best-funded candidates would have a shot.

Plus, it'd be very unlikely in an election with multiple candidates that any of them would win a majority of delegates, thus ensuring a contested convention.

[5280]

Because only the richest / best-funded candidates would have a shot.

Plus, it'd be very unlikely in an election with multiple candidates that any of them would win a majority of delegates, thus ensuring a contested convention.

Not necessarily, all candidates have from 2019 until July 1st 2020 to save up large sums of money to get their campaign going until the primaries are held during the summer. You would have 10 GOP and 10 DEM candidates on the ballots. Abolishing the delegate system will ensure whoever gets the most popular vote wins. They could start their campaign right after the 2016 elections in November if they don't believe they can get enough money.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

In case there is a candidate like Trump who might have the most support of all the candidates, but is hated by a majority of the party.  Maybe Trump still wins in real life, but it would have been absolutely certain in this system that doesn't give the field time to consolidate.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In case there is a candidate like Trump who might have the most support of all the candidates, but is hated by a majority of the party.  Maybe Trump still wins in real life, but it would have been absolutely certain in this system that doesn't give the field time to consolidate.

Then put in IRV.

And penalise candidates who spend too much by docking their vote count..

[Joe Republic]

Because only the richest / best-funded candidates would have a shot.

Plus, it'd be very unlikely in an election with multiple candidates that any of them would win a majority of delegates, thus ensuring a contested convention.

Not necessarily, all candidates have from 2019 until July 1st 2020 to save up large sums of money to get their campaign going until the primaries are held during the summer.

Do you have any idea how much money it would take to "save up" to run a national primary campaign, before you've even got to the general?  I guess SuperPACs would be here to stay, right?

You would have 10 GOP and 10 DEM candidates on the ballots.

What?  Where did this come from?  And how do you determine who those ten candidates are?  The GOP had eighteen this cycle, not to mention the hundreds of randoms who pay money to the FEC for the right to run for president, as should be entitled to any citizen who meets the constitutional criteria.

Abolishing the delegate system will ensure whoever gets the most popular vote wins.

Okay, so you're also advocating an IRV system as well, yes?  Unless you're okay with a candidate winning the nomination with a tiny plurality.

[Blue3]

Nationwide primary #1 (February) eliminates all candidates with less than 5% of the vote.

Nationwide primary #2 (March) eliminates all candidates with less than 15% of the vote.

Nationwide primary #3 (April) eliminates all candidates with less than 25% of the vote.

Nationwide primary #4 (May) eliminates all but the top 2.

Nationwide primary #5 (June) determines the nominee.

(It ends early if someone gets over 50%)

[/]

I would suggest holding one nationwide election on a single day and using the IRV system in order to select the nominee. If having the ability to build up "momentum" throughout the states is something still deemed necessary, then a schedule of non-binding straw polls could be developed and rotated every presidential election year in order to give every state a chance. These straw polls would occur throughout the months leading to the binding nationwide vote and would still give an opportunity for lesser-known candidates to build up momentum without having all the unnecessary complications and intricacies of the system we have now. My preferred schedule for each presidential election year would be as follows:

January 1 - This is the first day that candidates are allowed to announce their campaigns, hold campaign events, and raise funds privately or publicly (of course with ample FEC enforcement).

April 1 - The first non-binding straw polls are held and occur weekly until the end of June, probably in ten groups of five states each. The order of straw polls rotates each election.

July 1 - The binding nationwide primary vote is held using the IRV system and nominees are selected. Second-place finishers are automatically given the Vice Presidential slots.

August 1 - Each party holds a National Convention, at which the party platforms, rules, and other items of business are decided. The Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees officially accept their nominations.

December 1 - The general election is held using the IRV system.

January 1 - The new President is inaugurated at midnight.

[Illiniwek]

Sinister Iowan Cabal

[muon2]

Given that each state party is nominally independent, how do you enforce this? The nationals have tried penalties and bonuses to get compliance with their schedule goals, but have caved to rogue states as often as not. Then there's the issue that many states couple their presidential primaries to their general primaries (IL for example). Forcing a different date could force states to pay for multiple primaries in one year, which isn't cheap. There will be a lot of push back.

[This account no longer in use.]

Say hello to our nominees, Clinton and Bush.

[Santander]

There should probably be more "super" days and some regional balancing to streamline the primary calendar, but Iowa/NH give second-tier candidates a shot. I'm not a fan of the primary/caucus system, but candidates attending county fairs in Iowa and holding town halls in small towns in New Hampshire is a worthy part of the presidential selection process. Otherwise, the only people with the financial resources required pull off a nationwide primary win would be the establishment favorites and perhaps celebrity billionaires like Trump.

[SteveRogers]

July 1 - The binding nationwide primary vote is held using the IRV system and nominees are selected. Second-place finishers are automatically given the Vice Presidential slots.

Wait, what? Why? How is that helpful?

[Hydera]

The reason we have primaries across months is because both parties want their eventual nominee to campaign across most of the country prior to the election, to build momentum in the General Election and for americans know their candidate.

[i4indyguy]

I regard Nh and iowas priveleged position as being one on the most infhriatingly undemocratic practices in existance.    I do appreciated the heightened awareness that these citizens seem to be willing to shoulder, but letting a select few residents have such an outsized impact on who appears on a g e  ballot seems to diminish the central unsught of democracy itself....  that each person has 1 and only 1 vote.   And that each vote counts equally.


My preference would be a rotational block system, where states are divided up based on lacation and population, separated into 4-7 groups, and vote on a common day every 3 weeks or so.

[5280]

The reason we have primaries across months is because both parties want their eventual nominee to campaign across most of the country prior to the election, to build momentum in the General Election and for americans know their candidate.

If you're going to do that, campaign in each state alphabetically or by time zones.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Honestly, maybe it would be best to go back to the smoke filled rooms of the 1800s. Neither party apparatus cares about Democracy - uncommitted delegates, caucuses, complicated county and state convention systems, penalizing states that don't abide by a strict calendar, always letting IA/NH/SC go before anyone else, and delegate rules that are designed to confuse. It's obvious that neither party cares about Democracy in its primary system so we may as well go back to smoke filled rooms. If a few states insist on still using primaries/caucuses to bind delegates, fine, but most probably don't give a damn.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Honestly, maybe it would be best to go back to the smoke filled rooms of the 1800s. Neither party apparatus cares about Democracy - uncommitted delegates, caucuses, complicated county and state convention systems, penalizing states that don't abide by a strict calendar, always letting IA/NH/SC go before anyone else, and delegate rules that are designed to confuse. It's obvious that neither party cares about Democracy in its primary system so we may as well go back to smoke filled rooms. If a few states insist on still using primaries/caucuses to bind delegates, fine, but most probably don't give a damn.

That logic makes no sense at all. "There's flaws and undemocratic things in the current system so we should just switch to something more undemocratic."

[The Free North]

I regard Nh and iowas priveleged position as being one on the most infhriatingly undemocratic practices in existance.    I do appreciated the heightened awareness that these citizens seem to be willing to shoulder, but letting a select few residents have such an outsized impact on who appears on a g e  ballot seems to diminish the central unsught of democracy itself....  that each person has 1 and only 1 vote.   And that each vote counts equally.


My preference would be a rotational block system, where states are divided up based on lacation and population, separated into 4-7 groups, and vote on a common day every 3 weeks or so.

Our presidential election system was never supposed to be 'purely democratic', so using that as a justification for denying smaller candidates the chance to gain exposure and time with the voters is silly.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Because only the richest / best-funded candidates would have a shot.

On the other hand, a handful of early small states can easily determine the course of the race, which isn't very representative.