Daniels supports moving primary earlier

Governor Mitch Daniels said Friday that the excitement generated in the recent Indiana presidential primary might spur more discussion of legislating an earlier date.

The Indy Star reported:

"I hope there'd be more (momentum toward moving the primary) now that we've actually seen how much fun it is," Daniels said. "I hadn't imagined, and no one did, that we'd actually have such a competitive, meaningful contest here. Now we've seen what it's like. Hoosiers enjoyed it. I wish it were an every-time affair, so I think it's an idea we should still talk about."

Next year, Indiana voters get a break from what might seem like constant campaigning.  There will be no national, state, county or municipal election next year save for a school property tax special election or a large bond issue referendum.

However, the other three years can seem like one big continuous election process.  A November election rolls into primary filing season which rolls to the primary, then 6 months of campaigning to the November election which then starts with the primary filing all over again. Legislators in the Indiana House of Representatives can feel like they are on a constant election treadmill... look for the most resistance to moving the primary date from the legislators of the "People's House."

What do you think?  Should the primary be made earlier or should the first primaries in the nation start later?

Comments

[Steve Gordon]

This is an excellent question and deserving of much debate.

I think that nationally we should move to regional primaries and then those regional primaries rotate each election cycle. That would allow all states the opportunity to be the early influence. This would also reduce that awful "carbon footprint" of jetsetting cross country campaigning. How wasteful those Democratic candidates have been this year flying all over the U.S. campaigning instead of staying regionally for an extended period of time.

The state elections should follow the recommendation of the government reform committee and reduce the number of elections at state, county, and local levels. That would mean having municipal elections during the same election schedule as county and state campaigns. The actual primary date (May) should remain the same to discourage primary campaigning prior to or during the holiday season.

[Charlotte A. Weybright]

I not only think we should have an earlier primary but also a cap on the outrageous spending. From what I have heard, this presidential primary season will cost the two Democrats close to 1/2 billion dollars.

Combine that with the amount that will be spent when McCain gets going, and I bet the total election cost will be close to 1 billion dollars - just to "buy" the presidency for 4 years.

This is absolutely absurd when the country's economy is unstable, gas prices are jetting upward, and American families are hurting.

[Frederick Rost]

I think Steve Gordon's idea of regional primaries is a good one that makes a lot of sense on many levels. I also agree with the idea of aligning State municipal elections with the Federal election schedule. In addition to reducing the costs, I think there would be more prople participating than might otherwise with just local candidates on the ballot. I am disappointed there does not seem to be much movement by anyone to discuss an implementation plan for the Kernan-Sheppard Report. I get the sense folks are just wishing we'd all forget about it, so it goes the way of the previous two similar reports.

I disagree with Charlotte on campaign spending. Individuals should be allowed to support the candidate of their choice. What I would agree with is not funding any election with Federal matching funds. I would rather see that money spent on making it easier for people to participate by voting, and improving the security, accuracy and accountability of elections.

[Charlotte A. Weybright]

Fred:

I am not saying individuals can't support a candidate. I am urging that some type of cap be placed on the overall total taken in. We have limits on the amount that can be given. Why not have a ceiling on the total amount?

I still think spending close to a billion dollars on an election is insane.

The primary season is as ingrained as the electoral college in our system.

Although I enjoyed the attention Indiana received, I have to say I was glad to see it end.

[John Brown]

Our primary doesn't need to be moved. I think one thing that this race has proven is when you have two good choices the length of the battle is a plus. Healthy debate is a cornerstone of our existence as a nation.

The space between Pennsylvania's primary and ours gave people all over Indiana and North Carolina a chance to see both candidates and their surrogates in a number of different situations. If we get moved up we will just get lost in the crowd.

[Steve Gordon]

It does seem ridiculous to spend nearly a billion dollars to win the presidency. On the other hand, McCain-Feingold is even more ridiculous. Incumbents should not have the protection they have under that law. Free speech should allow a person to spend as much of their own money on a candidate (or in opposition) if they so desire, but full, open disclosure should be the rule.

[Karen Goldner]

John has a good point - I heard someone from the national media comment that if we had moved our primary up to Super Tuesday or some such thing, we'd have been just one more state.

The solution here is not what action Indiana might take on its own - the entire system needs to be re-examined. I agree with Charlotte that a billion dollars on a campaign is over the top. Part of the reason for this is a presidential campaign "season" that is two years long. The trade-off is that door-to-door politics takes a long time if you are doing it times 50 states, and the field organization that you need to be effective isn't free.

Personally, I loved our seven weeks (March 18, Bill Clinton's visit, through Primary Day) - but that was about right. I cannot imagine what it's like to be in Iowa, where about a full year of every four is spent being campaigned on.

[Bobett Kelley]

Campaign restictions and the amount of money spent on running for office needs to be capped. This is ridiculous!

Finance spending & term limits are needed for those running for elections to our House & Congress. We, the people of the United States, need a referendum ballot for term limits of all our elected officials.

The Executive office...has term limits...
2 terms or 8 years total in office. The same should go for all elected offices plus
a cap on money spent to get into the Presidency, House Congress & Senate.

[Roger McNeill]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What's confusing about this?