Are We Heading Towards a National Primary?

This just in: The Republicans have again moved up the their Iowa Caucus date to January 3; expect the Democrats to do similar. This means New Hampshire too will move up, which sets in effect a chain reaction: basically, all the primaries move up. So with this news, the question must be asked, are we headed towards a national primary for future elections and what would be the pros and cons of one?

In my opinion, we are headed towards a national primary. For God sakes, we could theoretically have caucuses starting in December this year if we continue this trend of states moving their caucuses/primaries earlier and earlier. Every state wants to be as close to Iowa and New Hampshire as possible so that they can exercise their influence on the nomination process. What this in turns leads to is an absolutely chaotic schedule which gets more chaotic each and every week as states decide that they want to go earlier and earlier. Regardless of what you think should be done, I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. More and more attention is being paid to what state is going when instead of the real issues at hand.

One option, I suppose, would be to set, in law, a schedule for the primaries every election year. That way, there is no confusion of who goes first when the election comes around. Another option is the one I mentioned earlier: a national primary. Basically, as the name implies, all the states would vote in their respective primary/caucus on the same day. Consider it a "Super" Super Tuesday. There are advantages and disadvantages however to a national primary that would have to be taken into account.

The positives are clear----it would end this needless, petty, and foolish competition between states to see who can go the earliest. It is a waste of time to be so concerned with the primary calendar and it serves as more of a distraction for the candidates and the voters than anything else. Not one state could claim to have more of a hand in the decision making process than another. The disadvantage can be seen when we look back in history. The perfect example is 2004. If it was a national primary, Howard Dean would have clearly won. However, because Iowa and New Hampshire was able to go first, and hence influence the proceeding primaries, John Kerry was able to win the nomination. The same can be seen in this election. If it was a national primary, Hillary and Rudy would be the two nominees without a doubt. But, because of the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have a very good shot at "stealing" the nomination from the national front-runners.

I suppose the question this country will have to answer is, "Do the pros of a national primary outweigh the cons?". I'm not sure if there is a clear answer, but I am sure of one thing----people better start asking themselves that question now, because I can truly see this country shifting towards a national primary in the near future.