When will we see a national primary?

[YRABNNRM]

As we're all seeing now, every state wants to be one of the first in the nation to have their primary. For 2008, we see states from California to New York attempting to push their elections closer and close to IA and NH. Is this a lead up to a national primary?

I think it is. We may not see one in 2012 but I think we will in time.

I would like to see a national primary take place in March or April. No state is more important than the other and shouldn't have the opportunity to pick the candidate by themselves and I think setting the primary in spring will allow the dead weight to drop.

What are your thoughts?

[Gabu]

From the way things are going, 2008.

[Joe Republic]

I'm pretty sure that it's enshrined in N.H. law that their primary is held a week before any other, and not necessarily on a specific date.  (This doesn't seem to apply to caucuses, for obvious reasons.)  Therefore, it doesn't seem likely that it'll happen any time soon.

If that actually is the case re: New Hampshire, then what would happen if another state passed the same law?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As long as the parties are dependent on the States to pay for running the actual primary elections, never.

[muon2]

From the way things are going, 2008.

In terms of the delegate counts, we are well on our way.

[Padfoot]

I'm pretty sure that it's enshrined in N.H. law that their primary is held a week before any other, and not necessarily on a specific date.  (This doesn't seem to apply to caucuses, for obvious reasons.)  Therefore, it doesn't seem likely that it'll happen any time soon.

If that actually is the case re: New Hampshire, then what would happen if another state passed the same law?

New Hampshire needs to get over itself and we should move to a rotational system where no one state has more influence than another.  Take 5 regions (Northeast, South, Plains, West, Midwest for example) and take two states from each region to create 5 new groups with equal representation from each region of the US.  Each group votes two weeks apart starting with the first group at the beginning of February.   Every presidential cycle the groups rotate up one spot and the group that voted first in the previous election votes last.  Bottom line, this "first in the nation" stuff needs to end otherwise we are going to end up with a presidential primary the day after midterm elections.

[zorkpolitics]

2008 will have a defacto national primary on Feb 5.  Currently7 states are set for Feb 5: AL, AZ, AR, DE, MO, OK, UT

In the process of moving to Feb. 5 are CA, FL,  GA, IL, NJ, NY, RI, TX, WV

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

My guess is 2020s

[Sam Spade]

Never, however expect a de facto national primary to pop up by this election, maybe.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why is it that we can't let the party bosses select and not bother with primaries?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Never.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm pretty sure that it's enshrined in N.H. law that their primary is held a week before any other, and not necessarily on a specific date.  (This doesn't seem to apply to caucuses, for obvious reasons.)  Therefore, it doesn't seem likely that it'll happen any time soon.

If that actually is the case re: New Hampshire, then what would happen if another state passed the same law?

Probably the two states would keep trying to schedule their primaries ahead of each other ad infinitum.  However, such laws are actually meaningless in that the national parties don't have to seat the delegates elected in these primaries if they don't want to.  So NH can schedule an election for whenever it likes, but the national parties can simply impose rules that prevent the election from counting towards the nomination process if it takes place too early.  And in fact, this is exactly what's happened.

[MaC]

Why is it that we can't let the party bosses select and not bother with primaries?

Because that would be cost-efficient.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm beginning to think that we might have one in 2007.

[adam]

The national primary always made more sense to me. It would be much easier and efficient. For that reason alone, it will probably never happen.

[Dr. Cynic]

It's hard to predict... I would prefer a national primary because whoever wins the early states grabs the momentum... A national primary makes more sense because there's no momentum meters... There's also no "I have a scream" moments.

Also, PA has a late primary, which I HATE!!!! By the time we roll around, there's only one or two names on the ballot.

[Mr. Morden]

Also, PA has a late primary, which I HATE!!!! By the time we roll around, there's only one or two names on the ballot.

But that could change with this coming election:

"Rendell pushes for earlier primary in Pa."

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/pennsylvania/ci_5434157

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I don't trust the people so scrap primaries and leave it up to the party bosses.

[TommyC1776]

I don't trust the people so scrap primaries and leave it up to the party bosses.

Why don't u trust the people?  Actually I believe Taft got the GOP nomination in 1912 because of party bosses (he only one like one or 2 primaries in that election.)

[zorkpolitics]

I would prefer we outsource the selection of each parties candidate to the College of Cardinals.
It would be vastly cheaper and almost certainly would identify the better candidate for the job, rather than the better candidate to raise money

[DWPerry]

Why is it that we can't let the party bosses select and not bother with primaries?

That's what the "minor parties" do. Why must my tax-dollars be used by political parties for something they can do using private funds?

[Lief 🗽]

Hopefully never. Or else the election just goes to whoever can raise the most money and can get the most insider connections.

[ottermax]

they should create some sort of schedule, starting with small states that don't get attention in the national elections and ending with larger states.

For example:
5 smallest states one week
Next 5 smallest states the next week
" "
And so on
5 largest states last week

This way, the election would not be decided until later, but the small states would still have a voice.

[Bruce Tedder]

Thought it might make more sense, it will never happen.

[StateBoiler]

Hopefully never. Or else the election just goes to whoever can raise the most money and can get the most insider connections.

Yes. Imagine the horror of if that were how we elected Presidents in this country? (/sarcasm)

There will be a de facto national primary day in 2012 (a regional bloc system). And if New Hampshire or Iowa don't play along, there's not enough power in their tiny population sizes to resist being told to "f*** off!" by the parties.