Speak Outs
Speak Out
The Path to the Presidency: Does our primary election system need reform?

March 5, 2012

By John Vettese, Student Voices staff writer

If you watch television news or keep up with the headlines online, it’s difficult to miss the presidential primary elections. Every day there’s an update: results from another debate, a campaign speech, one candidate dropping in the polls while another takes the lead. Presidential primaries are the elections and caucuses held in each state to choose delegates to party conventions. There is a lot to keep track of. In this series, we’ll explore the presidential primaries, from the roots of party politics to the process of nominating a candidate.

With a complicated network of primary elections spread out over almost five months, debate pops up from time to time about whether the system needs to be reformed.

Some think that the states with the earliest primaries – Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina – have an unfair amount of influence over choosing the nominees. In the 2008 election, which was closely contested, some states tried to move their primaries earlier in the season. The states of Florida and Michigan actually set new dates, and those states’ Democratic and Republican Parties were penalized for holding their primaries early.

The idea behind the ordering of the states in the primary is that the states with the greatest influence in the primary election cycle are the ones that are most demographically representative of the country as a whole. But other factors come in to play behind the call for change – including money.

To be successful in primaries, candidates need the ability to campaign heavily across several states, buy advertising and organize campaign offices. During primary season, you’ll probably hear a lot of commentators quibbling that Candidate A has visited your state 15 times while Candidate B has visited only eight times. You may be bombarded with ads from one candidate, but not from others. All this requires money, and critics say that the system favors the more well-heeled candidates while candidates with less funds falter.

A variety of alternatives have been proposed. For instance, some advocate for a national primary election – similar to the national general election – where all primaries are held on the same day. This could level the playing field in terms of influence, but would favor the well-funded candidates even more, since it would require all would-be nominees to campaign in all 50 states at once.

Other plans involve regional primaries – where the Northeast, South, Midwest and West regions all vote on the same day, allowing candidates to concentrate on smaller sectors of the United States in one period. A variation on this would rotate the order of the primaries so, for example, the South isn’t the first to vote every election season.

What do you think?

Does our primary election system need reform? Do you think it’s unfair to give Iowa and New Hampshire such great influence? Or do you agree that they are good states to start off the primary process? Do you feel that the primaries favor the well-funded candidates? How would you change the system? Or do you think it works the way it is? Join the discussion!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
5/11/2012
Porterville, CA
John
Smith/Monache
The primary election system needs some light reform. Our campaign system is almost completely based off large amounts of money, and big money comes from big businesses. This means that all the richest people in the United States control the campaign and thus control the candidates. We should not allow this blatant abuse of our democracy to go on any further. There have already been steps taken in an attempt to put a cap on campaigns, thus equalizing the election systems. Only then can all the opinions have some chance at catching light.

4/13/2012
Irving/TX
Yasmin
Bradley/Nimitz
I think our primary election system does need reform. Being very new to the topic, with few research, it seems to me that it is a long, and expensive process to have primaries at such different times. Having to run primaries really in a couple of states like New Hampshire and Iowa, it just doesn't seem fair. It seems easier to run primaries in regions and it also seems less expensive. It seems to be more fair to all the voters from one region to vote all at the same time.

4/10/2012
Irving/TX
Dalena
Bradley/Nimitz
Though it may be a hard adjustment, I believe that change could be a good thing. It could be a bit unfair to give Iowa and New Hampshire influence on the other states because as humans, we tend to conform and if we see Iowa voting for a certain delegate, we might stray our votes toward that certain delegate as well. I believe that we should be involved with regional primaries. It seems like a wiser decision to have every region vote at the same time; that way, no certain region will influence any other region.

3/29/2012
Benson
Chace
Mr. Sorensen
Yes it does. If the first few states that hold their elections are able to illiminate certain candidates or subjects from the running that may possibly be of great influence to some one else later in the season. To big of delay.

3/23/2012
Belleville Henderson
J.W.
Colby
I woud like to see the primary elections held on the same date across the nation. I don't believe that states should have specific dates and order. I'm not a fan of SUPER TUESDAY! If the primaries were held on the same date, we have no influence upon state to state, momentum from candidate to candidate, and less corruption. This in turn allows for the best candidate in the eyes of all Americans to become the party specific nomination.

3/23/2012
Belleville Ny
Dylan
Ms. Colby
I dont like the government what so ever, i think our government needs to reform entirely.

3/16/2012
Washington/New Jersey
Aloysius
Rokosn/Warren Hills Regional High School
The existence of front-loading in our system has essentially left mot primary elections a case of who gets to go first determining the candidate. If there was a national system in place so that there was a national primary, this problem would be eliminated.

Related News
3/16/2012
A long, ugly road to the GOP nomination
Washington Post

Related Resources
Share