Those polls are notoriously unreliable though, aren't they?
Plus, I imagine you'd get a significant group of people who don't answer or mislead out of principle.

I guess all states could vote on the same day as well :-)

Exit polls tend to be pretty solid, as it happens. They are significantly more reliable than other polling

"But I want to know now," whined Homer Simpson.

Reporting for each primary weeds out the weaker candidates.

Arizona is considering a law to block voting results until after all polls are closed so voters in line will be more likely to stay to vote. The reason is to get their votes on items other than the main candidate.

In the Reagan/Mondale election, Reagan was declared the winner before California finished voting. Then there wad Bush/Gore where Florida's results decided the election after weeks on debate and then the Supreme Court decision.

Or....duhh....all primaries on single day so they can't be influenced by media.

And media was required to give absolute equal time to ask candidates. And media was forbidden to state opinions. And.... And.... We all lived in a fantasy land....

I think the government could reasonably claim a compelling interest in prohibiting the disclosure of polling results, but it's probably not a stronger argument than the argument for limiting campaign funding, and that didn't fly with the Court. Besides, in practice there's no way the results could be kept secret over an entire primary season. Keeping results quiet until the polls close on any given primary day is probably doable, though.

All primaries on a single day means the candidate with the most money wins. Campaign finance reform is necessarily prior to primary schedule reform, even assuming there aren't legitimate reasons to spread out the primaries (e.g. sustaining public interest in the candidates over a longer period of time).

Campaign funding argument is visit. Trump has barely spent anything.

And, what, we should expect every candidate to match that from now on? We should discount the general trend because of a single notable outlier?

We could always return to the old congressional caucus nominating system. That might solve the whole gridlock issue as candidates would have favorable relations with Congress.

If only we had an election where all the states went to the polls on the same day.

Sounds like sarcasm to me, but I don't know enough to know what you mean.

Is there an election where all the states go to the polls on the same day?

He means the general election. Of course, the dynamics are very different there.

Because all the states go to the polls on the same day? :-)

That is obviously part of it, but what I mean is that the dynamics would still be different if that difference was eliminated. For example, the general election has fairly stable swing-state/red-state/blue-state inter-party dynamics. A primary with all elections held on the same day probably wouldn't, because the slate of candidates varies more across election cycles.

Or the US could get a real electoral system, rather than this primaries and electoral college nonsense...

For those of us not familiar with Presidential election systems, what are the advantages of an electoral college over just giving the Presidency to whoever has the most votes?

Oh, you know, things.

I believe he's lying.

I looked it up, and it gives smaller states a little bit more of a voice by making it harder to get elected if your popularity isn't distributed across the states.

Dad's Supreme Court friends can make you President when a state needs an electoral college "recount".

So the dominant principle behind the US election system is that a man who happens to live in a small state should have a bigger say than a man who lives in a large state? And to achieve this they have made the votes of anyone who doesn't live in a swing state count for very little?

My bet is that the Democrats and Republicans see this as another trick to ensure that only their parties matter.

Rah, rah, federation!

It's a vestige of history. It was part of the bargain that got the original 13 states to agree to a union. Then political calculations meant that neither major party has any incentive to move away from this system so it's lasted till now.

Since 21 states do not obligate electors to vote for pledged candidate and with Donald Trump in the mix, electoral college might come in handy.

"So the dominant principle behind the US election system is that a man who happens to live in a small state should have a bigger say than a man who lives in a large state?"

Well the dominant principle was that the states elect the President, not the popular vote per se. The states can decide for themselves how the electors are selected. South Carolina until quite late picked electors via the state legislature.

The Electoral College started as a way to boost the political power of smaller states, which was a major issue at the time of the founding, but ironically has evolved into a system that disenfranchises voters in both big and small states. Voters in big states like California, New York, and Texas are disenfranchised because it's a waste of time for candidates to spend any time visiting or addressing the needs of states that are 100% guaranteed to go Democrat or Republican. Small states like Wyoming and Vermont have it twice as bad, since not only are they 100% guaranteed to go one way, they also aren't worth hardly anything -- despite the "boost" they get from having their senators counted toward their electoral votes.

The only group of states which arguably benefits from the Electoral College system is swing states, especially big swing states. Voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida enjoy unprecedented access to candidates and their key issues catered to even at the expense of the country as a whole (for example the issue of normalization of relations with Cuba, which was several decades overdue, has been stalled by parochial opposition in Florida).

Going to a popular vote would certainly boost civic engagement and voter turnout -- since everyone would feel like their vote "mattered." Yes, it would also increase the political clout of "big" states, but really, is that any worse than what we have now? Shouldn't presidential candidates have to fight for voters in places like California & Texas?

The easiest way to increase turnout would be to eliminate the secret ballot.

true democracy is a terrifying proposition. controls are necessary.