02-18-2004, 05:01 PM
I think you may be confusing two very separate phases of the process. The final step, the actual election, is a simultaneous event (with the exception of accomodation for the many time zones the US spans). More on this in a bit.
Prior to that, the candidates for each party are chosen by whatever system that party wants. The major parties use a primary system. They have chosen to spread those out on a state-by-state basis. In fact, each state party organization chooses when their primary election is to be held, although I'm sure the national-level organizations largely control this.
The variation in dates allows some advantages for the state orgnaizations. The candidates can spend more time and money in smaller states, whereas they would be likely to concentrate on bigger states in one big primary. Given that the amount of money a candidate spends can be fairly disgustingly large, it can have a measurable effect on the economy. Is this more fair? I don't know - probably not. It does give some voice to some of the smaller states, though, and in any case it's not a government function and thus largely not under government control. I note that some of the smaller states use a caucus system rather than a primary system, which allows greater discussion but is not suitable for a more numerous population.
The primaries lead to the national party convention, which used to mean a big show while the real powers chose the candidate int he back room. There have been substantial moves to democratize that and represent the will of the voters more accurately. Recently, though, there have been moves away from popular representaion, specifically the "superdelegates" chosen by the party heirarchy rather than voted on. :(
The Presidential election itself is held all at once, but on a state-by-state basis. By that I mean that under the Constitution, voters are really not voting for candidates, but for "electors" who promise to vote for that candidate in the Electoral College. Each state has a given number of electors based on population. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details here, but I think the states are winner-take-all, where the plurality of votes gets all the electors. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. :)
The electors almost always vote the way they are supposed to. They are generally chosen from party loyalists. It's a strange system, indeed. The framers of the Constitution didn't quite trust the masses; in fact, the direct popular election of the President is a fairly recent development - IIRC, the state legislatures used to choose electors. The Electoral College was placed as a last-ditch defense to stop the mob from placing some total boob in office, like Caligula's horse or Hank the Hallucination.
<editorial>
Didn't stop Bush, though.
</editorial>
Prior to that, the candidates for each party are chosen by whatever system that party wants. The major parties use a primary system. They have chosen to spread those out on a state-by-state basis. In fact, each state party organization chooses when their primary election is to be held, although I'm sure the national-level organizations largely control this.
The variation in dates allows some advantages for the state orgnaizations. The candidates can spend more time and money in smaller states, whereas they would be likely to concentrate on bigger states in one big primary. Given that the amount of money a candidate spends can be fairly disgustingly large, it can have a measurable effect on the economy. Is this more fair? I don't know - probably not. It does give some voice to some of the smaller states, though, and in any case it's not a government function and thus largely not under government control. I note that some of the smaller states use a caucus system rather than a primary system, which allows greater discussion but is not suitable for a more numerous population.
The primaries lead to the national party convention, which used to mean a big show while the real powers chose the candidate int he back room. There have been substantial moves to democratize that and represent the will of the voters more accurately. Recently, though, there have been moves away from popular representaion, specifically the "superdelegates" chosen by the party heirarchy rather than voted on. :(
The Presidential election itself is held all at once, but on a state-by-state basis. By that I mean that under the Constitution, voters are really not voting for candidates, but for "electors" who promise to vote for that candidate in the Electoral College. Each state has a given number of electors based on population. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details here, but I think the states are winner-take-all, where the plurality of votes gets all the electors. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. :)
The electors almost always vote the way they are supposed to. They are generally chosen from party loyalists. It's a strange system, indeed. The framers of the Constitution didn't quite trust the masses; in fact, the direct popular election of the President is a fairly recent development - IIRC, the state legislatures used to choose electors. The Electoral College was placed as a last-ditch defense to stop the mob from placing some total boob in office, like Caligula's horse or Hank the Hallucination.
<editorial>
Didn't stop Bush, though.
</editorial>