My first question would be....why?
I'm not sure, which is why I am asking. Like I said above at first glance it seems to be something desirable, but I admit to not having put a lot of thought into this.
I'm sorry Florida and your state (and my Mother's) got the shaft, but...
Meh, it happens every election-something new is fucked up. As a Michigan Resident I am actually less miffed than most people, but that's in part because I vote Libertarian, and skip the primaries anyways. (Since in Michigan they require that you declare a party affiliation, and I have none, I also skip the primaries.
I can empathize with the people upset over the primaries, but to me it's not the straw that broke the camels back.
To me it's a bit like the call to do away with the electoral college - people are so ready and willing to rush to a unified government. I think they are mistaken. So every time one of these comes up, I flinch, a bit.
I want to go on record as saying that I am not for, or looking to create a Unified Government-however I absolutely support knee capping the political parties (Specifically the Republicans and Democrats) who have an unhealthy control of the way our government works, and how.
I'd like more variety, and better candidates. The process we have is flawed-which is why I am willing to look at other things, but I am not calling for any immediate changes. I'd settle for reasoned change, but am certainly not expecting any.
Plus, I think this primary season shows that while it might not be good to start to early, it does some good to let the candidates have to hold up over a bit longer period.
This certainly has merit.
One last thought - if you were a candidate, and all the primaries were held on one day, or even over a couple, where you spend your time and resources? The answer is a perfect reason not to do this...
That seems like a perfect reason to have a Unified Primary, to make the Candidates stand on merit, because they can't be everywhere at once. Yeah can ignore the small states, but do so at your own risk.