Why Aren't All the Presidential Primaries in the US on the Same Day?
There actually is no legal reason why presidential primaries couldn't be held on the same day. There are, however, any number of political and logistical reasons why such a move would be counter-intuitive for both major political parties. While the Constitution does specifically mandate a single day for presidential elections, there are no federal provisions for individual primaries. States have the right to determine their own dates for presidential primaries, or even the right to hold caucuses or other political party conventions instead.
One reason holding all presidential primaries on a single day would be problematic is logistics. Candidates from both parties would not be able to campaign in all fifty states effectively before having their political futures determined on a single day. If all of the states, large or small, held primaries on the same day, candidates might concentrate their efforts on only the states with the highest populations or the most political influence. Voters in smaller states would be asked to select a candidate with little to no chance to examine his or her stance on the issues.
There is also political momentum to consider. When smaller states hold early presidential primaries, the results of the voting can either improve or hamper a candidate's overall momentum towards his or her party's nomination. Staggering the primaries over several months allows candidates to gauge their relative popularity and adjust their focus on future campaigning efforts. Candidates can also determine whether to continue pursuing their party's nomination or drop out of the race entirely. If all primaries were held on the same day, some promising candidates would not have the opportunity to build up more support. Only the front-runners at the time of the primaries would be likely to receive their party's nomination.
The Republican and Democratic parties of each state have the right to choose the day of their state's presidential primary. Many states believe it is to their advantage to hold presidential primaries early, since late primaries often have little bearing on the eventual outcome. Several states do hold primaries on the same day, usually with the designation "Super Tuesday." This decision to hold simultaneous primaries is often the result of consultations between the national political parties and individual state party representatives.
While it would be technically possible to hold presidential primaries on the same day, it would not make much sense politically for either party. The primaries are not the same as presidential elections. Primaries generally guide political parties towards a nomination of their most electable or popular candidate. Conceivably, an early front-runner could become less popular as the campaign season wears on, so a staggered system of primaries can reveal the candidate with the most momentum and staying power at the end, not necessarily at the start of the race.
The GOP's hope for a contested convention might not have been an issue had all the primaries been held within a tighter time frame. I think the candidates who were forced to drop out of the race would heartily agree.
'Candidates from both parties would not be able to campaign in all fifty states effectively before having their political futures determined on a single day.'
Poppycock. There is no excuse in this era with 24/7 news and all manner of social media why a candidate can't articulate their views on any an all relevant issues pertaining to all 50 states and the territories prior to a single primary day to all interested voters.
I don't care where a candidate states their views, only what those views are. This nonsense needs to end.
By the time our primary rolls around (June) the candidate is already chosen (by everybody else). Our primary is basically pointless.
It's crap! Same day primaries are the only way for the voters to speak as a whole. I'm disgusted with the parties, and the process.
It's in the parties' and the big money donors' interests to keep most of us out of the process. The fewer people they need to influence, the better. For them, anyways.
Just because Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina love "candidate X", doesn't mean I love "X". Based on their picks the last few decades, we shouldn't trust them with anything!
Save money and time! National Primary Day!
If the candidates haven't gotten their agenda across to the public before the primaries start, that's their problem. Every voter in the United States should be able to vote for all the candidates. After the first couple of primaries, candidates start dropping out. I live in Oregon and our primary isn't until May. It's just not a democratic way of doing things. Oregon could save a lot of money by not even having a primary, since the candidate from each party has already been chosen.
So glad to know I'm not the only one who feels like the decision for the Republican nominee has pretty much been determined before the rest of us (myself in PA) have had the opportunity to vote.
The media has so much "pull" in who gets nominated with all of their speculations. I guess when I go to the poles I'll still be able to vote for other offices to be filled but the Republican candidate for president has pretty much been chosen for me. I have no say at this point.
I completely agree with the other posters. Having primaries on different days undermines the democratic process. It gives certain states unfair advantages, and it denies citizens in some states from having the full range of candidates to choose from.
I agree with you completely anon9886. Even if they were lumped into the same few days we would get a better outcome.
I am a Republican in PA and got aggravated with the fact that my candidate was out before I could vote. I would also like to see open primaries where everyone could vote for the best choice, not just your party. Our government has lost sight of the fact that they are working for us, not their own interests. --Jason in PA
While an argument can be made for exposure, momentum and logistics, those pale in comparison with the value of every vote. I will not be able to vote until May and being a Republican the decision has already been made. The other thing that was left out of your argument is the role that the media plays. Everyone can see that there is unequal coverage, even during debates. I believe that fairness and that the voice of every citizen is heard is far more important than the reasons of convenience made in this article.
Post your comments