Primaries / Campaign Reform

[jodiamonds]

On the subject of primaries, a friend has suggested:

• All primaries should be on the same day.
  
• That day should be in August, a few months before the November general election.
  
• "Campaigning" can't happen before March of that year.
  

Some pros and cons I've already heard:

• http://www.typo.org/~web/ (The top section only.)
  
• Short campaigns favor the

Comments

[dibalh]

If I have it right:

Primary dates are set by state parties. But national parties threaten to not COUNT states in the voting if they disrupt the status quo too much. So, for example, if MA tries to move its primary to 2 years before the general, the national party will say, 'Fine, but we'll ignore your results.' So that's one brake on utter ridiculousness.

[gemrepus]

votesimpsonhemstead.com

Changing the primary pattern

[anonymous]

There are some things that impact campaigning flow and the two that matter for timing are:

-Style
Big states need ads and speeches since there's too much ground to cover and too many people to visit. e.g. NY, CA. Small states prefer grip-and-grin and the way you sell yourself is look people in the eye and tell them what you think. e.g. NH

-Fundraising
Fundraising in the smaller states allows politically interested rich people from other places to see how the horses are doing before they place their bets. Since your discussion was not about the ridiculous money in politics, that's enough said.

"Campaigning" can't happen before March of that year.
You can't restrict people from campaigning as early as they want, talking about yourself is protected by the First Amendment (even if it's really early and nobody wants to hear it. There's nothing that says free speech has to be in good taste.)

--VM