Should all state Presidential primaries take place on the same day, or should each state schedule it's own primary as it does today? (UserQ)
Having everyone vote at once would benefit the richest candidates. It would harm this nation in very real ways. If the votes for change win then it indicates the majority of users of this app are woefully ignorant.
I used to think that America was better than the rest of the world. Now I see the corruption and self interest is at work here too. At least there are still a lot of good, kind and hard working people who really care. I hope we do not loose our country to short sighted profits.
Get it over with.
It should stay the way it is, because this process allows for the lengthy debates that elucidate their stances to the public.
they should do all this stuff 6 months before election day..
The primaries in the small states early in the process gives the smaller candidates a change to be heard. One big primary would give too much sway to the big states.
@Christophx - not that the candidates visit all of the states for primaries now anyway. The candidate has usually been chosen by May and they don't bother to come out to Oregon because our electoral votes aren't worth it. I vote for an Epic Tuesday (bigger than Super). Make all states legitimate.
It's the states right to decide when it is and theirs no reason why it should change other then to create a media frenzy
I believe the primary elections should be held within a period of a week. And no longer than 3-4 months before the general election.
We all complain, myself included, that elections cost way too much money, but it costs a fortune to campaign nationally for a whole two years.
primaries should occur all at the same time about 3 months before the general election.
The winner would be the one who is doing the best at that time. You'd have no chance for late surges
The way it is allows candidates to go to each state and argue their point across instead of sitting behind a camera on national news to address the nation. With the way we have it, candidates are able to go out and personally talk with people.
I wish the parties decided what order the states voted in, at random, in groups of 5 states every week. This gives the poorer candidates a chance to get their message out to the people and the contest doesn't turn into a single day's feeling of one candidate.
The debates are not pointless, to me, but there are too many, and the media has too much influence by hosting them. I have learned a lot about the issues by watching almost all the debates AND the focus groups and commentary afterwards. I try to be an informed voter and keep an open mind.
Different schedules... So you can see all the gafs and determine the right one to beat obama
But you wouldn't have all the fun that comes with the anticipation if you did all of them on the same day. That would be like having all the Superbowl Playoffs in one day. :p
Whatever it takes to stop the robo calls and my mailbox being stuffed full of recyclables.
same day just to get it over with faster
Lol at Iowa new Hampshire and south Carolina.
People that think having all primaries on one day would not draw out the campaigning, fail to realize they would campaign all year long before the primary. And how does campaigning in all 50 states at once save money? It doesn't.
Brilliant idea, 1 day! No need to draw out this ridiculous process. All these pointless debates and we are not even into the general election.
I honestly think we start the whole process way to early. Granted, the person in office is basically campaigning the whole time they're in office- but they did win & they're there. Then again- when they campaign- how come after years they're still campaigning instead of pointing to their record?!
No brainer-think of the money that'd be saved, and the ridiculous debates and commercials we be spared.
Get 'em out of the way faster- that's all I want.
"its," not "it's."
The idea is good; but realistically, what should happen is that the primaries/caucuses should go first in order of population, CA,TX,FL, etc. maybe even split it in thirds, 1 week per third??? Just an idea.
That wouls save canidates lots of money
Fox=evil- I agree, but I think that results shouldn't even be counted until all states are done. That way the results are less likely to be leaked.
Yes. And they should all take place in the northwestern part of North Dakota. And Pigs will fly. And Mitt Romney will be the next President. Yuck yuck.
Haha it had to happen sooner or later tea.
Voting on tax day sounds like a great idea to me. Good way to remind everyone that all the stuff that is being promised to them in all those campaign adds still has a price tag.
@fox=evil I actually agree with you. Not sure that has ever happened before.
I am from a big state and think we get shafted by the current process. The candidates are usually already picked by the time they get around to Texas and California, so we don't get any say at all.
@cowboy - but who would want to vote on tax day?! hahaha
I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I don't care what Iowa thinks, what New Hampshire thinks or what Florida thinks. The election should be moved to April 15 and let's go vote America. These primaries are just a side show.
That sounds good too
I think it should stay as it is now to allow equal campaigning BUT the results are withheld until they are released all at once at the end so that it still matters when states like PA vote later on. The media's ratings would suffer too, so that's a bonus.
I think the states should decide that they want it on the same day so that outcomes aren't merely based on who people believe is winning in the primary
Same day. The little states are meaningless.
If they were all on the same day, the candidates would have to choose which states to appear in. The smaller states would get shafted.
That being said, I find that I rarely have a choice by the time primaries roll around to my state. The system could use some fixing.
I like the way it is, but wish that the media didn't ruin it by declaring the "winners"
As it stands now, Iowa, NH, SC and FLA choose the winner, and everyone else has no say whatsoever. If that's representative democracy, I'm Elvis.
The primaries really aren't an election. They are just the clubs getting together to try and pick "the winner" in the general election.
The long campaign cycle allows people do gain campaign money by doing appearances. Like diners and such. And it gives time to vet the people up on stage. There is enough time to dig up all the dirt. But I believe only individuals should be able to donate. This would stop help to stop the payola
by the time the PA primary occurs the candidate is usually already selected - so all on one day so everyone' vote counts
At least one or two early states but an abbreviated primary season would be better. Vet the candidates through NV then do it all at once
I like long vetting too but I would divide the country into regions and then pair one state from each region together and spread the primaries every two weeks. And the order would rotate every 4 yrs so different states could be first
I think we need a fairly long vetting time. I was for Newt and the more I see of him the less I like or trust his agenda or leadership. I really like the month or two idea for primaries though.
If it's all on the same day, previous results wouldn't influence others.
I think that's fair - you get an accurate snapshot of the momentary situation.