“A National Primary Day would eliminate all but the most heavily funded candidates.”
“Candidates like Santorum, Gingrich, Bachman, etc. never would have been a factor. Romney would’ve had no competition for the nomination.”
I don’t accept the premise.
The total number of days needing to campaign would not in fact be that much longer; so its not like the total funding must be greater.
Its not like the “weaker” candidates do not need to plan on campaigning for every primary if they want to win. They do.
And, the best support that can bring in money from lobbying for that support across the country in the first place. That does not mean the candidate has to NOT keep their own state-by-state schedule, building their support. It does not mean they have to be campaigning simultaneously across the country.
The key I left out is that I would replace the primary season’s current primary schedule with a primary debate schedule, providing more debates around the country among the primary contenders, where a candidate can sell themself in the debates, and if they are well recieved, they can generate competing financial support as the primary campaign period progresses.
A well funded lousy candidate at the start does not have insurmountable advantages over a much better but less initially well funded opponent.
That's unfortunate. Because it's true.
No money, no advertisee.
One national primary day and only one, maybe two, candidates can afford to advertise in enough markets to be a factor in the final vote.
But, given one national primary day, they do.
The way the system works now is the same way that national packaged goods marketers work. Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, e.g., are test markets. Small, inexpensive markets to start with -- which allow a candidate to prove he can compete and, thus, gain funding.
A single National Primary Day essentially concedes the election to the guy with the most money.
I assume you don't favor the "establishment candidate", but that's who you'll get with a National Primary Day.