Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Professor Baumann
During the 2012 presidential election, about 11% of the eligible voting population voted
in the United States primary election. However, when it came time to the general election, about
58% voted (McDonald 2014). These numbers show a very big problem in the United States;
people are not voting in the primary elections and are not having their voices heard on who they
feel should be running for the president of their country. The main reason for this is because the
primary elections are a very complicated procedure. Some states hold primaries while others
hold caucuses. Some states vote months ahead of other states. Most people recognize that this
system is outdated and unnecessarily complicated. There have been many different ways to
combat this including systems such as a rotating regional primary, having a different state vote
first, the Delaware or Ohio plan, a random rotation plan, etc. One theory that comes up time and
time again is having a National Primary Day, in which all the states have one day where
everyone goes out and votes for their party's nominee. The United States should hold a National
Primary Day to decide a party's candidate for the general election. By holding a National
Primary Day political parties would save money, candidates would not be forced out of an
election early, and it would make the primary electoral system much easier for the average voter
to understand.
Some states have caucuses in order to determine the party nominee. Causcues are run by
the party itself meaning that the party funds caucuses. Having a National Primary Day would put
the responsibility on the states, meaning it would be fully funded by the state. A National
Primary Day will give nominees more funding for the general election by using the money a
party saves from not having to hold caucuses. For the American people this means that when it
comes time for the general election, their candidate of choice will be backed financially by the
party more so then they are already, which will allow their candidate of choice to have more
opportunities to gain supporters due having better funding to pay for their campaigns. .
A National Primary Day would also keep candidates in the running longer and keep
certain states from having more significance than others. For their individual reasons Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada all vote before every other state in the primary elections
(Putnam 2015). The results from these four small states pave the way for how the rest of the
states will vote. The issue with this is that all four of these states have small predominantly white
populations which do not reflect the entire United States population. However, often other states
will join the bandwagon and just vote the same as these states. This drives good candidates out of
the race because if they do not have enough votes in these four states than the other 46 are
irrelevant as they are already considered out of the running. Not to mention, having these states
vote so early drags out the whole process, making it slower than it needs to be. If every state
voted on the same day not only would it be quicker but also, it would stop candidates from
dropping out of the running before the majority of the American population has had a chance to
vote. If we had a National Primary Day each candidate would still be considered in the race up
is highly unlikely that an uninformed voter who does not have a big interest in politics will take
the time out of their day to educate themselves on how the process works. Instead, they would
rather stay uninformed and just not vote or not vote until the general election. This especially
turns off younger and new voters from voting as it makes them feel they do not understand
politics so they have no business getting involved with it. This process drives away potential
voters who, if they voted, have the ability to completely change the election results. A National
Primary Day is extremely simple and easy for the average voter to understand, so more people
The idea of a National Primary Day is not a new concept and has been debated every
election cycle. The main argument against it is that a National Primary Day would require
candidates to have to have a national campaign, which costs much more money. It is said that a
National Primary Day eliminates the underdog in a presidential running and the candidate with
the largest wallet will have the biggest voice and the biggest chance to gain supporters. In order
to stop this, a candidate can tactically focus where they will spend the money they raise in order
to gain the most supporters. For example, a candidate can focus funds on the most densely
populated areas instead of the larger areas. A grassroots candidate should focus their funds and
attention on places such as New York City, with a population of around 8 million people, rather
than a smaller state such as Montana, with a population of around 1 million people. While the
state of Montana is considerably larger than New York City, a candidate is much more likely to
gain support in New York City because of how densely populated it is. This will help save the
candidate money and make it so that they are not overshadowed by candidates who have access
to more funding. A national campaign takes a great deal of funds to execute, however if a
candidate strategically targeted their funds in areas with the most potential voter support they
would still be able to keep up with candidates that have more funding (Kurtzlebin 2016).
As stated earlier, a National Primary Day means having a national campaign, which puts
extreme pressure on the candidates. A National Primary Day means campaigns become much
more high stakes and when they are speaking to one state they are speaking to every state. This
makes candidates act very careful and it would be assumed that only those with the proper
political training would have a chance in the race, making it impossible for those without the
training to win. However, being President of the United States requires political training in order
to oversee diplomacy. A presidential candidate should have the ability to handle high stakes
situations and if they cannot handle the pressure during the campaign then they cannot handle the
pressure when holding office. Having a National Primary Day forces candidates to seek political
training and will show voters how a candidate acts under pressure and on their feet.
Having a national primary day would lead to a much simpler way of voting. It would
mean that a party can save its money for the general election, candidates would not be
considered out of the running so early, and the election process as a whole would be such easier
and less intimidating to the average voter. Our current method is unnecessarily complicated and
makes American politics more off putting to the average person, which stops citizens from
Kurtzlebin, Danielle. 2016. No Way To Pick A President? Here Are 6 Other Ways To Do It.
NPR. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/26/463870736/no-way-to-pick-a-president-here-are-6-
McDonald, Michael P. 2014.Voter Turnout Data - United States Elections Project. United
Putnam, Josh. 2015. Everything You Need to Know about How the Presidential Primary
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05
/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/?postshare