Quote:
|
Originally Posted by allaboutmusic
There should be four weeks of campaigning followed by a nationwide day of voting. If desired, do this twice (the first time to decide the candidates for each party).
|
That makes it simpler, but that doesn't necessarily make it better. In fact, when it comes to creating good elections that result in preferred outcomes, simpler often means worse. (Case in point: plurality (first-past-the-post) voting is both the simplest and worst form of voting in terms of creating a favorable outcome.)
For one thing, America is a large place. Spreading out the primaries allows the candidates to campaign more personally in various places, thereby allowing the voters to get a much better feel for those candidates than they would if the election were national and short. It's been well-documented, for example, that when Obama gets to focus his campaign in a smaller area and people get to know him better (all while also getting to know Clinton better), he seriously cuts into her lead. Having a condensed, national primary would prevent voters from getting properly exposed to a candidate they might otherwise prefer.
That said, I don't claim that there's any perfect (or even very good) answer for how to run the primaries. There are a lot of complex issues involved.