Home > Politics > Why We Need a National Primary Day

Why We Need a National Primary Day

I am not one to jump into the political fray on my blog as I do not follow politics all that closely.  However, I do enjoy watching elections (for entertainment if nothing else) and I find debates to be absolutely hilarious (“You’re nice enough Hillary” was a great line from this year’s election season). However, as I’ve watched this year’s primaries I’ve realized that the primary system is inherently unjust. And as a Christian matters of injustice are of a concern to me.

While I acknowledge that for the most part he/she with the most money wins in politics (although this year there have been exceptions to that rule) I think the extended primary season makes that even more the case. Plus, only some US Citizens get to pick the nominees. Chances are, by the time the primaries are over, the race for the nominations might be over too, and the chances of the Pennsylvania primary in April mattering in the Presidential race are almost none existent (the exception might be the democratic side). If a candidate does poorly in the early races you might as well drop out, even though you might have done well in other states.

My proposal is to put every single primary on the same day. Instead of 22 states on Super Tuesday, do all 50. Or even 48 and let New Hampshire and Iowa keep their traditional early spots. That way everyone in the country gets to pick the nominees and the full field of nominees gets a chance instead of being dead by the South Carolina primary.

Categories: Politics
  1. February 6, 2008 at 12:34 am

    That’s a terrible idea. It would lead to the presumed, nationally known, “front-runner” winning without even an opportunity for better candidates to have a chance.

    If you don’t like your state’s position (which I am not so sure your premise is right since PA gets a huge influence compared to the small “early states” in the general election which, if reversed could lead to equal injustice), argue that the media shouldn’t declare candidates over because of the early states or argue for a rotation system. But making the American democracy even more of an insider’s game by doing it all on one day would lead to a injustice on a scale I don’t even care to imagine.

  2. February 19, 2008 at 6:41 am

    Hey Wallace, what’s up long time no see. How’s the kid? …

    I’m a fan of reforming the primaries to a rotation system. I agree with Jer about the injustice of a national primary. Hillary would be the nominee already if that were so. Barack Obama is the perfect example of why spreading it out works. Once he talks to people their opinions change. But a candidate needs to have the opportunity to talk to people. TV ads and national “big money” oriented campaigns would be the norm if we had a national primary.

    But at the same time, Iowa and NH getting first dibs every time pisses me right off. Random rotation of state primary order each election cycle would be best.

    Anyway, just checking in on your blog. Hope things are going well with you.

  3. February 27, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand, favoring a few states really doesn’t make sense. On the other, I second…or third…the comments made by the folks above. Nationalizing primaries would favor wealth and power, and make it more difficult for grassroots movements to overcome entrenched and monied interests. And, honestly, I’ve been enjoying this primary season hugely. It’s been a hoot.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: