The only reason why they are still in September is because "tradition." It mattered less in a time when political affiliation in New England and in much of the northeast in general was primarily based on religion and ethnicity. The Kennedys were Democrats because they were Irish Catholics. The Chaffees were Republicans because they were English and Episcopalians. In this VERY partisan area when the primary difference of the two parties nationally is on ideology, it makes absolutely no sense.
A more conspiratorial explanation I heard, at least for Massachusetts, is that it discourages students and younger renters (who often move at the beginning of September) from participating. And that while the Democratic supermajority likes having those voters in November, they worry they might be more inclined to support a challenger in the primary.
I agree that our "perpetual campaign" is bad for our democracy, but I think the solution, unfortunately has to be amending the Constitution to allow restrictions on political spending. Then perhaps we could change the calendar in conjunction with other changes. Simply moving primaries without restricting spending (or even prohibiting spending outside of the designated season, as many countries do) would advantage incumbents and not really help with the problem.
The problem with your argument is that we are going to have "perpetual campaigns" in any case here in the USA. Keeping the primaries late doesn't shorten the campaigns. They just lengthen the primary campaigns at the expense of the general election campaigns.
Yeah, I really wish all States would move their primaries to the Spring. It just makes more sense to me.
The only reason why they are still in September is because "tradition." It mattered less in a time when political affiliation in New England and in much of the northeast in general was primarily based on religion and ethnicity. The Kennedys were Democrats because they were Irish Catholics. The Chaffees were Republicans because they were English and Episcopalians. In this VERY partisan area when the primary difference of the two parties nationally is on ideology, it makes absolutely no sense.
A more conspiratorial explanation I heard, at least for Massachusetts, is that it discourages students and younger renters (who often move at the beginning of September) from participating. And that while the Democratic supermajority likes having those voters in November, they worry they might be more inclined to support a challenger in the primary.
I disagree completely and want it to go the other way. I wish all primaries were in the late summer or fall.
The United States has the longest elections by far and it is absolutely horrible for our democracy.
I agree that our "perpetual campaign" is bad for our democracy, but I think the solution, unfortunately has to be amending the Constitution to allow restrictions on political spending. Then perhaps we could change the calendar in conjunction with other changes. Simply moving primaries without restricting spending (or even prohibiting spending outside of the designated season, as many countries do) would advantage incumbents and not really help with the problem.
The problem with your argument is that we are going to have "perpetual campaigns" in any case here in the USA. Keeping the primaries late doesn't shorten the campaigns. They just lengthen the primary campaigns at the expense of the general election campaigns.