I have no idea why they're not done this way, since we can certainly manage to hold a presidential election on the same day across the country.
The reason they are not standardized is that the federal government does not have control over the primary elections - and the states have no incentive to standardize them. They benefit from the exaggerated and brief attention generated by the primary frenzy within their borders. The increase in room tax revenues alone in New Hampshire is probably a huge boost to a place that would disappear from everyone’s attention span if we went to a national primary.
Primaries and caucuses are purely internal party affairs used to choose a candidate, which involved the States ONLY because the two major parties were successful in using the State general election machinery, money and polling place for FREE. This has allowed the State Legislatures to meddle in internal party matters.
The National Republican Party at the 2008 Convention could choose to CHANGE to way that the Republican Primaries are funded, when they are conducted and WHO can vote in said same primaries or caucases.
The States do not need to do anything, the Republican Party at the 2008 Convention needs to do something about 2012, in addition to selecting a 2008 Presidential and Vice-Presidential ticket.
dvwjr
I would add a couple of observations to it.
1) There is the possibility that the Republican party has been corrupted by Democrats crossing over to vote for Republicans in the primary in order to accomplish just what we see happening.
True, but there is more going on. There is also the reality that, the socialists having taken over the democrat party, the JFK type democrats ( pro America, support the military, lower taxes but big government programs types) have fled to the republican party. They are not small government, constitutionalists. The result is that the republican party, at present, is really the democrat party of the 1950's and early 1960's repackaged.
Excluding the libertarian, who is not a republican either, the four remaining candidates are all either 1960's democrats or old liberal republicans. They are not conservatives.
2) The delegate procedure needs to be changed to closed party member or registered republican only voting (registered well in advance not the last minute) with no cross over. it also needs to be set up so as to favor no specific group or region.
The only solution is either a renewal of the Republican party on principles or a third party. What the republican party really needs is a leader who is committed to conservatism and who is young and vibrant and who can also overcome the MSN. The latter element is no small battle. Hunter and Thompson fit some of these criteria, but neither could get any traction.
When even some of the alternative media (radio, print, Internet, and blogs) are willing to compromise principle to "beat Hillary," we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Hillary lite, which is what the top four remaining candidates approach, + a democrat controlled congress = a virtual Hillary. We need a candidate who will stand up to the MSN + the democrat socialists. Otherwise the net result will be the functional equivalent to electing her. It is one of the reasons Rush Limbaugh, who has not compromised principle, has said that with some of the candidates (not all) he might not be able to support the nominee.
I have no idea what I will do in the primary or in November, living in a blue state my vote hardly counts, though I always vote. Since my representative in the House, a republican who campaigned as a conservative, twice voted to override the president's veto and voted for the socialist - Hillary care - version of SCHIP, I also have no one to vote for on more than one level.
I do know one thing, my real influence is with my wallet. It is shut, since Thompson dropped out, and it is staying that way.
Very bad idea. This benefits the candidates that have unlimited amounts of cash. The advantage would go to the extremely wealthy. They could generate public interest and buy endorsements without any popular support.
I’m with you. I am pissed that the people of Iowa, NH and SC basically made the choices for the rest of us. Come on three states out of 50? That leaves an awful lot of us out of the process.
This would not change the outcome as then candidates would only be campaigning on the coasts and they are still liberal.
Actually, in Iowa, Republicans went for Huck, believing him to be conservative.
National Elections are controlled by the Fed.
Primaries are controlled by the state parties.. THe RNC and DNC are the only ones who can punish a state for playing with their dates.. they did so for Michigan, but not others.
Of course I find it amusing this guy consideres IOWA a liberal state.