Is a National Primary a Good Idea?
As the race to the GOP presidential nomination drags on with no end in sight, some activists have called for the electoral process to be changed to a national primary system, in which the entire country would vote for a party nominee on a single day. This demand is not new—some 125 national primary bills have been put in front of Congress since Rep. Richard Hobson first introduced the measure in 1911.
Proponents of a national primary argue that the current staggered system of primaries and caucuses give the early states—Iowa, New Hampshire, and others—overwhelming importance and influence while the later states are all but ignored. However, opponents argue that creation of a national primary would create more problems than it would solve.
Is a national primary a good idea? Here is the Debate Club's take:
The Arguments
No — A national primary would kill the American dream that any boy or girl can grow up to be president
TERRY SHUMAKER, Former United States Ambassador and Democratic National Committee Member Comment
Yes — State contests should winnow the field before we give everyone an equal vote in a national primary
ROB RICHIE, Executive Director of FairVote Comment (7)
Yes — Same-day national primary would empower voters equally and restore meaning to the principle of "one person, one vote"
ILEANA WACHTEL, National Press Secretary for Americans Elect Comment (3)
No — A national primary would negate many virtues of the current method
JOHN C. FORTIER, Director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center Comment
No — Voters in small and mid-size states would largely be ignored in a national primary
BETH CHAPMAN, Alabama Secretary of State Comment (3)
- Previous Topics
-
Is Mitt Romney Vulnerable in the South?
-
Should the U.S. Discourage Israel From Attacking Iran?
-
Is Obama to Blame for High Gas Prices?
-
Can Mitt Romney Close the Deal With Conservatives?
-
Will the Culture Wars Benefit the GOP in the 2012 Election?
-
Is Obama's Corporate Tax Plan A Good Idea?
