This makes perferct sense, particularly considering the information age that we all live in. Everyone instantly knows what happens everywhere else in the country ... polls are out of control ... what better way to isolate ourselves from undue influence than to simultaneously cast our votes?

This is an excellent idea which makes me wonder why it has not alrady been implemented.

I totally agree with rumbaugm that New Hampshire and Iowa have an extremely disproportionate amount of power in selecting the presidential candidate. But having a longer primary system does have it's advantage: it gradually eliminates candidates and narrows it down to one.

By having a single primary, the results could easily end up as a plurality with the winning candidate having less than 25% of the vote. Imagine if we had a single primary at the time of the New Hampshire Primary. In a race with no clear frontrunner, Clark, Dean, Kerry, or even Edwards could have come away with a 20%-30% plurality victory.

Heck, forgo primaries altogether had have the delegates vote then and there at the convention, or forsake the convention and rely on primaries to choose the candidate.

Use instant runoff voting and eliminate all primaries.