List two improvements which may occur if the country were to switch to a one-day presidential primary system.
4 Answers | Add Yours
Freeing the candidates who are already in office to carry out the duties they were elected to accomplish instead of taking a full 15 months to campaign in the primaries, as in this last election, would undoubtedly be an improvement for the country. The relentless march of the election calendar backwards in the past few electron cycles has been troubling, and is unsustainable.
The amount of money it would save - and the influence of fundraising it would reduce - is almost staggering. Obama spent $350 million on the primaries alone. One day, of course, is not much time for apathetic American voters to get to know a candidate and to try and choose a quality one, but if candidates did not need to raise so much money in donations for wealthy backers and corporations, then they may also be able to act more directly in the public's best interest.
The equality argument is something that is present and is quite persuasive. I would also say that it might actually generate more interest in the electoral process because of the equality it affords to all candidates. If the primary system were decided on one day, essentially, all candidates- the establishment ones and anti- establishment ones- would be considered equal. The one day system would be a test of immediate infrastructure and campaign organization. Indeed, money could be raised, but all candidates would be in the same boat of ensuring that on one particular day, everyone emphasizes the need to get the voters out in full force. There would not be such an advantage as given to the "front runner" because of the immediate nature of the election.
Many people argue that our system would be better if the US had a one day presidential primary where all the states had their primaries on the same day. Here are some of the major benefits that they think this change would bring.
- It would make it so that all states had an equal chance to have an impact on who gets nominated. As it is, early states like Iowa and New Hampshire have a hugely inflated impact on the race. If someone does well in those states they get momentum, they can raise more money, etc. Often, by the time the schedule gets around to the later states, the race is decided and those people have no say at all.
- It would make for a shorter campaign. As it is, the candidates have to be in full campaign mode for months on end. They have to race from state to state, contesting each election. This requires tons of money and it is very wearing on the candidates.
We’ve answered 319,658 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question