references

Should we have 1 national primary or regional primaries

The American people deserve a rational system to select their president, but a national primary in which all the state participates in elections is a bad idea. Proponents of national primary puts across that more voters would take part in the process than in regional primaries failing to recognize the significant problems of the national primary and the many benefits of having regional primaries.

The national primary is advantageous to only better-funded and famous candidates since they are the only ones that can finance the expensive and large campaigns that are associated with running a national primary. The infamous and less-funded candidates would not be able to reach out to voters since they cannot run the expensive campaign. Thus, the national primary undermines the value of fairness in an election. Also, since the candidates would concentrate in states with large voters, the mid and small-size states would be ignored. Additionally, national primary limits viable candidates since a majority of the candidates would not afford national campaign and thus reducing the choices for the electorate (Chapman par.2).

Instead of a national primary, regional primaries would allow all the states and citizens to participate in elections. Under the regional primaries, the country would be grouped into four regions which would vote in turns. The voting would run in four months, and this would allow the citizens to evaluate all the candidates before making a choice. Also, the regional primaries eliminate the funding pressure through offering organizational and financial benefits associated with the regional campaigns (Chapman par.4). Thus, having the regional primaries would lead to a more orderly, logic, and fair process giving an opportunity of all the states regardless of the size to take part in selecting their presidential nominees.

Work cited