Primary Day: Why Presidential Nominees Should Be Chosen on a Single Day

Why do we have an Election Day but not a Primary Day? No aspect of the presidential nomination process causes as much controversy as the primary calendar. The calendar starts off in January or February of each election year and ends in June. Fifty-seven jurisdictions hold their primaries and caucuses over the course of these months. The Iowa caucuses always start off the calendar, and they are followed by the New Hampshire primaries. The results of these contests work to eliminate some candidates while they bestow momentum on others. More candidates participate in the first few nomination contests than in the last ones, meaning that disproportionate power is given to voters in states holding early nomination contests, while those in states with later contests are provided with less or no voice in choosing their party’s presidential nominee. In some years, a party’s presidential nomination contest ends before citizens in late-voting states have even had a chance to cast their ballots. To gain more influence and greater voice, states have consistently attempted to move their primaries forward in a process known as “front-loading.” This dynamic has led to calls for reform, as politicians, journalists, scholars, and citizens all try to rethink the primary calendar ahead of each election cycle. This essay examines the primary calendar and what can be done to change it. It begins by explaining why Iowa and New Hampshire always hold their nomination contests first, and it looks at how other states have tried to match Iowa and New Hampshire's power through front-loading. It also briefly looks at the 2020 primary calendar and explains how both major parties tried to play with the rules in 2020 to bring some stability to the presidential nomination process. This essay then turns to examine the one reform that a majority of voters consistently support: holding all primaries and caucuses on a single day. Scheduling a national Primary Day is important not only because the current staggered nature of the primary calendar privileges some candidates over others, but also because it favors voters and party members in some states over those in other states. The way to remedy this problem and to ensure that all voters are treated equally is to hold all 57 nomination contests on the single day. While scheduling a national Primary Day would appear to be a simple, direct, and fair way of selecting a party’s presidential nominee, a national primary also comes with its own challenges. A national primary would change the nature of presidential campaigns by shifting the resources and spending of candidates from low-population states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to high-population states like California, Texas, and Florida. It would also diminish the aspirations of candidates with less money and name recognition by denying them the opportunity to build momentum in the early states. A related concern has to do with how votes would be tallied and added up in a national primary when the list of candidates running in 57 different jurisdictions could potentially be very large and no candidate wins a majority of these votes. Finally, there is the thorny issue of how a single primary date could ever be imposed on the states. Whether Congress has the power to set the date on which the states hold their primaries is a constitutional question that remains unresolved. Whether the national parties could muster the willpower to impose a national primary on the states also remains in doubt. As a result, while the benefits of holding a national Primary Day may be substantial, the path to getting there comes with its own challenges.