Why aren U.S. Presidential Primary elections all on the same day?
It’s because it’s up to each state to decide when to have their primary, not up to Congress to set one date for all. Historically, it made sense for them to be spread out over a few months, because when candidates were moving around by train and whatnot, states could have more exposure to a candidate if they didn’t all vote at the same time. New Hampshire claimed primacy in this procession of primaries, and by and large that was honored by the rest of the states. As a practical matter, we are now gravitating toward a national primary with Super Tuesday up to 22 states. I would not be surprised to see nearly all states voting on Super Tuesday, next time around, although there is some advantage in being at the end of the pack, also, in case no one gets an early lock on the nomination. I do think (agreeing with ZackTM on preview) that there is a strong argument to be made for allowing New Hampshire, Iowa and a few other states to be ahead of the pack.
They aren’t on the same day because the Democratic Party, as an organization, doesn’t want them all to be on the same day. (Or the Republican Party, but they’re not who you asked about) We have a tendency in the US to blur the lines between Federal requirements and State requirements, both because it can be confusing and we’re lazy and because States aren’t quite as independent in operation as they once were. The Fed requires-without-requiring things like speed limits by saying you can do what you want but hey, if you don’t do what WE want then we don’t give you matching funds. We similarly blur the lines between the process of electing a President and selecting a Presidential candidate for a party. With some constraints, each party (or any party theoretically, though only 2 have any reasonable chance of making it) can do selection how they like.
As some pointed out, its about allowing candidates of less fame and/or campaign chests compete on a closer level with those who are political celebrities (a la Hillary). Another reason is that it helps focus the politics on smaller states. If we had one giant primary day, the candidates would spend the majority (not all) but a lot of their time in the states with the largest number of delegates, like California, Texas, etc. The current system allows for attention to be given to the less populous states. Myself, I don’t mind having a few single states up front, but it’d be great if this was some form of rotating privilege. Say, next year, its Hawaii, Mississippi, and Delaware, instead of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Of course, we could always go back to the old political machine days, and just send delegates to the convention and let the candidates fight over them like meat scraps in a dog pound.
Well, New Hampshire has a law that it must have the earliest primary. Which seems a bit strange, but there ya go. Demographically, it doesn’t make sense because nearly all-white, rural Iowa and NH get to go first. They should really have a more urban state in there, one with a large city that has to deal with city problems. Actually, if you really want to be pitied, move to Indiana. Hardly any electoral votes, and the state usually votes Republican so Republicans don’t come because they’ll win and the Democrats don’t bother because they’ll lose. If you’re a liberal there it’s much worse than Florida.
