Primary Question

[pcaggie]

Mid 30's guy here, and have always pondered this. Why is it that three states basically get to choose each party nomination for President? Native Oklahoman, but have lived in DFW since college. So because someone I have become really drawn to in the last month or two may not fare well in the uber populated states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, they have to drop out when they may do well in states with tons of delegates (see California, TX, etc) due to lack of $$$ or momentum. Why not make the primaries a true Super Tuesday like the general so 3% of the U.S. population isn't basically squelching my vote?

 

[ctdub]

There are a number of reasons. If there was just one nationwide vote how would you determine the top 2 candidates prior to the primary election? Or would you elect a nominee with the plurality of the vote?

The current process allows lesser know candidates an opportunity to gain support and fundraise as they get their name out there and build momentum, otherwise it would always be the biggest most well known politicians with the most resources... Moreso than it already is.

 

[pcaggie]

I guess my response would be that isn't it already done through winners via pluralities? How many times do candidates receive the 50+% of votes in these early primaries? It is always, "we ran well, and off to....!". But by state 3, again, small delegate counts, they basically decide the top two or three for the rest of us. May have been sensible way back when, but in the world we live now, anybody can get their message out there at anytime. And if one is willing, they can hear said message at anytime. Again, just a curious guy. Is this the way it is because that's the way we have always done it? Doesn't hurt to move some cheese. And I believe a guy won a general in 1992 with a plurality due to a 3rd part member. And if your argument is plurality, isn't that why the run off happens?