If you have been following the news of the Republican presidential primaries, you may have noticed discussion about states moving the dates of their primaries. Unlike the general election, states do not hold primaries on the same day; the separation of primary elections allows for a more drawn out nomination process, gives candidates a chance to work specific states critical to their overall political strategy, and gives all (or at least, most) states an opportunity to receive particular attention from the candidates.
These may be good reasons to separate the primaries, but there are some apparent downsides to organizing a presidential nomination process in this way. For one, it makes the entire process resemble horse race coverage by the media. Sometimes, it's almost as if you can hear the fast-talking race announcer shouting about how another horse just pulled into the lead!
In addition to the downsides of horse race coverage by the U.S. media, there are concerns about the current trend toward frontloading. Frontloading - a procedure in which the states increasingly schedule their primary earlier in the campaign to receive more attention and have a greater impact in the overall nomination - is a trend that continues. This year, South Caroline and Florida have already adjusted their primary schedules to assert greater control in deciding the nomination.
Based on the cartoon above and basic research on frontloading, write a response to your thoughts on the frontloading of presidential primaries.
- What is the motivation to move your primary? What are the downsides? What are some of the unintended consequences?
- What are the pros and cons of horse race media coverage? Consider the implications for lesser-known candidates, candidates with more extreme position, and mainstream candidates.
- What effect do you think the schedule has on voter turnout? political efficacy? trust in political parties and the government?
- If you see this as a problem, what solutions might alter the situation? If not, why do you think is the best scenario?
Well, I think that the states want to move their primaries because it will potentially benefit their state because if the party of their governor gets elected, the state could have an easier time with Washington. Let's face it, Democrats work better with Democrats. Republicans, with Republicans. If states who have earlier primary dates have more of a say in the govt, of course they are going to move their day up to beat out other rivaling states.
ReplyDeletePros of horse race media - You learn about the many, /many/ different candidates that are running. It gives people a chance to decide on the candidate they will want to vote on because they can see all of them and their stances on issues.
Cons of horse race media - It's annoying: "So and so is ahead. (2 hrs later) Oh! Mr. blah is now in control of Florida." It just gets to be too much. It is also not super accurate. It makes people think that it is all a /really/ big deal, when whoever wins the caucus doesn't necessarily mean they will be the next president.
If the states that are moving their caucuses (Nevada, Florida ect...) stress to the people that they now have a chance to change the position in Washington, people will more than likely come out. It will force the people to trust their government. Most people really don't know what is going on at this point in the "race to the white house," as Good Morning America calls it. There are too many candidates, and the people will most likely go with whomever their state tells them to vote for. (not in all cases, but c'mon, it's true)
Frontloading is such such such a huge problem. 1) As we talked about in class... This is kind of a big deal historically, and people aren't going to like a change. 2) If every state keeps on changing the date, then we will never have these caucuses. 3) States are going to get angry at each other and cause arguments and such in a time when all the states need to work together. I think that they should set the days, and that's that. No arguing and no frontloading.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/06/1023605/-Nevada-GOP-has-selected-a-new-Presidential-Caucus-date?via=sidebar
^ here is a link about Nevada changing it's caucus time. Talks about the "leap frog" game the states are playing like in the Cartoon.
It is a huge bandwagon effect. The earlier states claim greater influence by signaling to the nation which candidate is popular. Also, candidates will spend much of their time and effort into the earlier states and can ignore the later ones and owe them less politically. The problem with front-loading is that the campaigns are beginning earlier and earlier because of state competition. Campaigns drag on for months!
ReplyDeleteThe pros of horse race media coverage is that people can receive a lot of information about each candidate and they have plenty of time to decide whom they wish to vote for. However, the constant battle takes over the media. And, more often than not, its hard to get REAL information on a candidate. There is a lot of false or exaggerated information. Also, the media tends to focus on the popular candidates and you never really hear of the others. Also candidates who raise the most money have more power. It really isn't the most fair. And most Americans only receive political information from the media. Most don't research or read, they go by what the TV tells them.
Another issue with this, is that the people don't actually have much say. It is really about money, media, and the state government. This lowers political efficacy and trust because people don't really believe they have a say. They think politics has just become a game. A war between who can raise the most money and gain attention. When a state changes the date, it forces the candidate to choose where to spend its time and money. I think with the voters...it depends. Because political efficacy goes down some people may not feel the importance to vote however, others may. Especially if their state is one of the earlier states.
Front-loading is just another conflict. It's hard because why should one State get to go first. Tradition? It may be important to some people but is it fair? It's like kids in line. Honestly...its a real life situation of budging. But also when states "budge" it causes conflict. How can this be fixed? It's a hard question. Several proposals have been made in the past. I liked the proposal of requiring every candidate to campaign in every state. This eliminates the conflict between the candidates that have more money and lesser known candidates.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon illustrates how some states have changed the dates of their Republican presidential primaries. A motivation for a state to move its primary may be to increase the impact of its primary results and influence the final nomination. A downside could be that if one state moves its primary, other states might move their primaries as well. This fight over which state will have the first primary in the nation can distract states from the main purpose of having the primaries. Also, people are used to the idea that Iowa has the first primary. Although there is no law that says Iowa must have the first caucus, a change may have unintended consequences on how people vote.
ReplyDeleteIf different candidates continue to rise to the top, “horse race media coverage” could help people learn more about which candidates are running, therefore helping candidates who are not well-known. If there is one candidate who seems to be ahead of the others, this may influence people’s votes, though there is no guarantee that he will win. For example, candidates with an extreme position may have an extremely high lead for only a short period. If there seems to be a mainstream candidate who is in the lead, people may just vote for him without looking into what the other candidates have to offer.
While the fight over which state will hold the first primary is a problem, I think more people will vote if their state holds the first primary because they will feel that their votes will have an effect. With the increased attention towards their state and the belief that they are part of the first step in choosing their future president, people’s trust in the political parties will grow. However, if states continue to change the dates of their primaries, people might start to think that it is being treated like a game and won’t take it seriously. This could lead to a decrease in people’s trust in the government.
I think that frontloading is definitely a problem, and that states should stop debating how early their primaries should be. The main focus of the states during the campaign is not about which state holds the first primary, but who will receive the nomination for the presidential election. Instead of having a big drama concerning when certain states will hold their primaries, there should be a fixed schedule with the order in which states will have their primaries.
Link: http://whitehouse2012.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/back-loading-and-frontloading-changes-presidential-primary-and-caucus-schedule-big-time/
States find it beneficial to move up their primaries because not only will they get a lot of media attention, but the earlier they get into the campaign season, the more money they will make. They will get millions of dollars from people funding campaign ads and from the campaign troops staying in their hotels, eating at their restaurants, and participating in other activities that will pump money into the state’s economy. A downside to moving primaries farther ahead is that citizens will have to sit through even longer campaign seasons with more bickering ads. The candidates will also have to start asking for money earlier and raise funds for a longer period of time. Both citizens and candidates will eventually be unable to put up with all the fuss. Honestly, how much earlier can the primary dates be pushed?
ReplyDeleteRace horse media coverage does not allow lesser-known candidates much of a chance. The primaries are already taking place before they can get their word out. And some candidates that may have ran and had a better chance had the voting been later, may just decide it’s too late and wouldn’t even be worth it. A candidate that has a good lead already could quickly be guaranteed victory as earlier primaries undoubtedly have an impact on later voters. Earlier primaries are good in the fact that with an earlier start to campaigning, candidates that are already known and out there have more of a chance to get around and interact with voters as they tour state after state in the crazy race for candidacy.
I think that all this would most likely increase voter turnout. With all the media coverage, voters would want participate in their states influential results. However, I also think there would be people who hadn’t made up their minds yet and would decide not to vote. I think many people would be more likely to vote on impulse or just follow the crowd rather than get the facts and make an informed decision. This might give people the feeling that maybe when the fuss is all over, the candidate that was chosen really wasn’t the best.
I think primary dates are O.K. where they are now, but they definitely shouldn’t get much earlier. One way to stop this might be to find and order and fixed dates for each state, but I don’t think the states could ever agree. It might just be better to say that all primaries cannot begin before the first of the year. This too might cause problems but I think it would be better.
Source: http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/10/06/2429745/why-the-primary-was-worth-moving.html
http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2011/sep/30/meopino1-florida-a-primary-player-ar-261595/
Obviously, states find it advantageous to hold primaries early on in election season. Many people, including those running for office, believe that the outcome of the early primaries has a substantial effect on who become the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. As a result, candidates spend much time and money campaigning in the states with early primaries, generating a lot of media coverage for those states and giving their economies a boost, for large numbers of voters flocking to campaign events are bound to spend money. However, presidential primaries are often not isolated elections. In many cases, voters select state senators, mayors, and many other officials as well as presidential candidates on primary day. If a state moves all of its primaries forward with its presidential primary, it could well affect the campaigns of local officials. If a state were to only adjust the date of the presidential primary, voter turnout for elections that used to occur on the same day as the presidential primary could be significantly reduced. Turning aside from frontloading, adjusting a presidential primary date in general can affect state elections. For example, Wisconsin recently moved its primary day to the time when nonpolitical elections occur. By pairing a political election with those that are meant to be divided from politics, Wisconsin added a political flavor to the selection of people for positions such as county clerk and state Supreme Court justice.
ReplyDeleteRace horse media coverage allows Americans to closely follow the frontrunners in the primaries. However, the media often turns a blind eye to candidates who are not well-known or who have more moderate views. As a result, the media may feed the campaigns of those whose politics veer strongly to one side of the political spectrum and those who are mainstream candidates while preventing underdog candidates to make gains in the race. On the other hand, the combination of race horse media coverage and frontloading could allow a lesser-known candidate who won an unexpected victory in an early primary to ride through the primary season on a string of wins without being thoroughly examined by the media or voters.
Of course, both voter turnout and political efficacy for those primaries that occur early on would be extremely high, for the first primaries are said to have a major role in determining who the party nominees will be. However, if many primaries are held very early in close succession, later primaries would undoubtedly have lower voter turnout because citizens from states with later primaries may feel that the candidates have already been decided. Additionally, if frontloading occurs to such an extreme that primaries take place during the holiday season (e.g. December 26th), there is a smaller chance that citizens will separate themselves from their daily activities and vote. Finally, frontloading creates a pettily competitive picture of government that can in no way increase trust in the American political system.
Clearly, frontloading is a problem in America. However, there are few viable solutions to the issue. States could be assigned permanent dates for their elections, or states could be banned from holding primaries before the first of the election year. The latter suggestion is what I believe to be the most acceptable solution to the problem, but it is doubtful that a law passed by the federal government creating that policy would be upheld by the Supreme Court.
Sources:http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/santorum-early-primaries-and-caucuses-a-travesty/
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/frontload.html
http://redrockonair.com/news/2011/09/15/wisconsins-presidential-primary-dates-officially-changed-for-2012/
One reason for a state to move its primary up is that the state becomes in a sense more valuable and receives more candidate and media attention. The outcome of the earlier primary has an effect on the later primaries and on upcoming voters' minds. Yet the fad to move up state primaries will decrease voter turnout and only extend the official campaign season. The extension would bring the official campaign season eleven months long, which would mean eleven months of dirty political ads.
ReplyDeleteFront-loading may be a good idea in the interest of a state but not in the best interest of candidates. This game of leap-frog has shortened up the opportunity for more candidates to arise and giving the voters a more moderate candidate.Those still dwelling low in the polls will have to work even faster to make a potential comeback. It also makes it harder for the front runners to maintain the lead.
It would be nice to presume that once the shift in primaries is finalized that this order won't change again, but once one state attempts to jump Iowa, they all want to. Voters living in later states may feel less important and that the parties' candidates are pretty much official so there's no need to go to the polling booth. While those living in the first states in the primary calendar will feel more important.
This front-loading business only means a larger mess that voters will get stuck putting up with. The states need to revert back to their places from 2008 and stop complaining. If a state refuses to comply well then the results will not count. Yet Florida jumped and Iowa's caucus is now January 3rd and New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina soon follow. So much for a pleasant Christmas and New Year break.
Not to repeat everyone else, but one reason to move a primary would be that the state thinks they will be able to better control the outcome. The thinking behind this is if a certain candidate wins the first primary, they will get more media attention than the other candidates, and perhaps more votes, and it continues to snowball from there. The downside of moving the primary to an earlier date is that other states traditionally having their primary first (Iowa) feel the need to move theirs up, too (frontloading). Then some of the other states follow, resulting in fairly early primaries. Campaign leaders are not fond of this because it gives them less time to prepare for the campaign.
ReplyDeleteHorse-race media coverage is generally a good thing for lesser known candidates; in the event they would win a primary, they would get this “horse-race” media attention, which means more publicity, which, potentially, means more votes and support. I think for mainstream candidates, media attention is media attention. They’ll probably get attention in either a win or a loss simply because they’re popular – or infamous – among citizens. From a citizen’s point of view, horse-race media coverage isn’t exactly the thing to count on. Just because a candidate wins the first primary (wherever it ends up being), there are too many other things that have to be taken into account in terms of the final outcome.
There are two sides of the story in this situation. I think a citizen with high internal efficacy would stick to their opinions and vote for who they really want to vote for, regardless of schedule change. However, someone who generally counted on seeing where the candidates were in the race so they could vote for who they thought would win (so they could make their vote really count) may have a struggle casting a vote. These people may feel as if the government doesn’t consider the citizens and they don’t have an effect on the government or their decisions.
I don’t think that one or two states moving their primaries up is a huge deal. If the calendar’s a little bit different, so be it. That’s where frontloading comes in; when the states that want to keep things they way they were move their primary up, too. If other states really cared so much about having the first primary, then they can all take turns, just like in kindergarten.
The motivation for a state to move their primary comes from the most part on one factor: influence on the overall election. A clear downside of frontloading is that it gives the frontrunner advantage by allowing them more time to gather funds and resources for their campaign. An example of an unintended consequence would be what the cartoon is depicting: states competing for the earliest primaries.
ReplyDeleteThe pros of horse race media is that it gives candidates, both frontrunners and lesser-known, brief periods of fifteen minutes of fame. If a candidate does well in a primary, they will get the attention. The downside is that this attention is so sporadic and at times not beneficial because its frequency makes it less valuable.
The earlier the primary, the higher the turnout. This because people who vote in earlier primaries have more political efficacy because they feel that their vote means more to the overall election. A citizen's trust in political parties and the government would depend on own the political party.
I think there isn't really a way to get around this issue in a Constitutional way, The only way avoid frontloading would be to have an informal agreement within and between both political parties. Until that happens, this will just be another negative aspect of politics that we'll have to deal with.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/frontload.html
ReplyDeleteA state would want to move its primary in attempt to gain more influence in the actual race and to lengthen the actual presidential race. If a state has an earlier primary, it would be able to put a higher emphasis on its own citizen's opinions. Seriously, WHO CARES WHAT IOWA THINKS AT ANY OTHER TIME. But still Iowa has first say. An early opinion gives a state more say in the actual future of politics in the nation. It is kind of like Wyoming having three votes even with the population variance between it and all of the other states with three votes. There is no reason for this extra emphasis, only that it has it. The downsides to having an early primary are that if a seemingly unlikely candidate gains momentum later and starts winning, the state would basically have lost its ability to influence the nation.
ReplyDeleteThe American media is so messed up that it really depends on what you are watching and how the information is presented and how seriously you actually want to take it. In effect,the media could turn coverage into a campaign ad or an attack really easily. It all depends on how it is managed. A less known candidate would probably be intentionally overlooked by certain media giants to give favoured candidates more sway.
the year 1933 had three elections for Reichstag seats. In the first, the Nazis won seats, in the second, they won the majority, but by the third, they actually lost seats (it should be noted as a fun fact that they lost seats primarily to the Communist Party. This highly polarized loss should indicate the effects of having a long campaign to mobilize a lesser party's resources and voters). This is a clear example of how a long race influences voter turn out. People get bored and they loose interest in politics. Party resources are used up. People tire of politicians playing their little games. The long races can turn voters off.
Efficacy is effected indirectly. The long races and Caucuses and Primaries, and Superdelegates, and all the stuff that goes into picking the guy to run our nation can really become overwhelming. People loose touch with what it all really means. Most people aren't really willing or able to follow everything and make sense of it all. Also, if people notice all the time and effort that the parties are willing to put into something like this, it is discouraging when one considers how the government will actually try to help them.
I can offer no solutions to this that many other brilliant men and womens haven't thought up and offered. If there were a better situation for us, it would either be in place, or the other party would have a darn good reason for ensuring that it isn't in place (in which case it is clear that my solution would be a waste anyway).
Kind of a pessimistic approach, but it is seriously the truth
The motivation for moving your primary is to get your state more publicity and have a larger impact on the election. The downside is that you’re in constant competition with all the other states for order of the primaries. The unintended consequences are that the order of primaries has turned into a horse race for a competition of who goes first.
ReplyDeleteThe pros for horse race media coverage are the candidates who win the first few primaries tend to do better because it helps get the ball rolling. Mainstream candidates tend to win the first couple primaries. The cons are the first couple states play a major impact on the election and eliminate possible lesser-known candidates.
Voters in states with primaries in the beginning probably are greater then the turnout in later primaries because early voters feel that they can make a greater impact on the election. While later voters feel that the election has already been decided and their vote doesn’t count.
I find this to be the best scenario because candidates know which primaries are generally first and can campaign in these areas first. This gives lesser-known candidates the chance to make an appearance by touring states like Iowa and Florida to build a larger voter base.
States feel compelled to move their primaries because it allows their favoring media (ei Fox vs. CNN) to give them more publicity and try to capture as much of an audience as possible before elections. They're also trying to get their followers into more of a hype over the race for the lead much like the horse racing example. By using highly polarized issues such as gay rights and "Obamacare" as well as moving at a rapid pace of news, the Republcans have made it so that anyone who wants to follow the debates must follow them religiously to seem "current and informed."
ReplyDeleteOne downside to moving up the primaries is the gap between excitement and actual action. People get swept up easily in all the media attention and strong emotions, but the farther apart the elections are, the more time the voters have to mediate their opinions and simmer down or even lose interest. Another downside is the fact that the more days of debates, interviews, etc..spell out more days that have to be paid for and advertised.
As mentioned before, the biggest unintended consequence would probably be the loss of voter interest (and increase in exasperation) due to expanded time period of elections.
One both pro and con to the "race horse coverage" by the media the growth of confidence in the Republicans as a whole, but the con being that it wouldn't favor any one candidate for long. Another con would be that similarly to a horse race, one a contender falls to the back, they STAY in the back and receive almost no attention and are lost to the whirlwind of the front runners. The same applies for the leader of the pack, the suspense will mount and bandwagon fan numbers will grow.
As I said before, the lengthening of the time span between elections will both lose and gain the feeling of urgency to remain politically active as far as voting and voicing one's opinion. As time goes by, windows for opportunity to find the downsides to the candidates as well as scandals also increase.
Perhaps keeping the dates and orders the same or only altering them slightly would simply eliminate one whole piece of the media's fire fuel for the elections as a whole.
A motivation for a state to move their primary is to gain more publicity in order to influence more people before the election. A downside to moving its primary is an ongoing struggle to be the front runner. An unintended consequence is that states keep competing for the front spot.
ReplyDeleteA pro of horse race media coverage is that the people learn about the candidates and have time to make decisions as to whom they wish to vote for. It also gives the candidates more publicity, and gives the first few winners a head start on the election. A con of this would be that they front runners of the first few primaries tend to rule out the lesser known candidates.
Voters who vote in the first primaries tend to have more political efficacy because they feel that since they're voting first, their votes will count the most. Whereas voters who vote in later primaries may not think their vote would count as much.
I think the best solution would be to just follow tradition, although states want to be the first, it would cause a lot less chaos if they just stuck to tradition. Maybe there could be a schedule made, an agreement between states, so that each state could have a fixed date.
I think the main motivation to move a primary is basically just the aspect of the media's attention. What politician shies away from attention like that? Moving ahead gets their name thrown out there right away, and they're one of the first people to be considered as a candidate. On the downside, other states tend to try to use the same tactic, so does it really get anyone anywhere? Like in the picture, states continue to keep jumping ahead of each other; it's just like a game.
ReplyDeleteOn the positive side of the horse media coverage, candidates are put out there right away, and voters have plenty of time to consider them. But on the downside, if you're not really popular, you'll be thrown out almost immediately. Now some candidates try to use the shock card and ride on excitement, but overall this almost keeps them from being a serious candidate, whereas other candidates try to get the popular vote to bring them up in popularity and get them attention, being probably the best tactic in the longrun.
When it comes to voter turnout, I think waiting until later in the season is the best way to go. This way, you'll be fresh in the voter's mind and you won't have a swarm of other candidates being thrown into the mix at the same time. But at the same time, candidates shouldn't wait too long so that they'll be considered and not casted aside, as some voters may make their mind up fairly quickly.
Although I wouldn't necessarily move my primary, I still see this as the best scenario. If states want to move their primary? Good for them. Other states want to wait? Also awesome. It all depends on how you want to play your game, and whatever works for each state should be how they play it. None should be forced to jump into this at any one time, as the last states may not even be considered anymore and the first would get a huge advantage. Leaving it up to the states is the best way to go.
The motivation for moving the primary up would be the extra publicity for the party. Some downsides are the length of the campaign, also some people may not have enough money to campaign for this amount of time. Some unintended consequences would be people in Washington that are campaigning wouldn't be as focused on their jobs as they should be.
ReplyDeletePros-People can see all of the candidates and their views because of their extra long season.
Cons-People get sick of hearing about poltics and all the negative attack adds. Also lesser known candidates with out the money of the most popular candidates will not be able to stay in the race as long.
I believe that the people will turn out better since they have heard about the election for months. I also think it makes everything else go down, i know the more i hear about the scandals and all that other stuff the less i believe in the government and elected representatives.
I think we should set a date for each primary permantly, and follow tradition in creating these dates. This is the only way to control it for good.
There are many motivations to move a presidential primary. The state gets more attention from the media and the nation. They get a bigger voice in what candidates will be in the race at the end because a lot of candidates lose their chances when they don't win and others do. But on the other hand there are a lot of downsides that also go along with moving one's primary up. The tradition of some states always having their primaries first goes out the window, when other states decided they want theirs first. When that happens the nation doesn't respond while because we're a nation that does not like change a lot. And when states decide to change their primary the media takes notice and criticize them for doing it. Also when they change it, the election season gets bigger and that means more work for the candidates and more commercials for the citizens to watch.
ReplyDeleteThe horse race coverage from the media is a good thing for the candidates to tell the people what their views are. But it is also a bad thing because whatever they do it's covered and caught on camera or on a voice recording. That's terrible for the candidates. They can't do anything or saying anything bad because it could come and bit them in the butt. The lesser-known candidates are great full for the horse race coverage because they could say the most stupid things, but once one of the front runners slips up they are there to swoop in and get more attention. One good example of this is Herman Cain. He was a nobody who introduced a stupid bill called the 9-9-9 bill. This is a nine percent tax on corporate, income, and sales taxes. This for normal people is incredible huge, but now he is one of the front runners and in some polls he IS the front runner.
The longer the election session is the less likely younger voters while come out. When the schedule for the candidates is longer than a year away from the presidential election people get bored and annoyed with it. And when different groups/candidates from the same political party go after each other that brings peoples trust in that political party down to level that could possible hurt that candidate and party enough so that they can't win the election.
My biggest problem with the election session is all the ads both negative and positive. The candidates spend millions of dollars on ads going against the other candidate(s). Most of the people in the US already have their minds made up because we are all stubborn people. They spend millions of dollars on trying to get that one vote that could help them, when they could use that money to help other causes that most people would agree with. But then when it comes to the final days up to the election, all you see or hear is the candidates bashing each other. If it was up to me I would put a limit on how much the could spend or the would have to give a donation of some amount to a good cause based on how much money they did ended up spending. Plus I would put a time limit on when they could have ads. It would be a year from the election up until a month before the election with the candidates still being able to campaign then just not with the use of ads.
The reason for states to be attempting to have their primaries before other states is that this would increase their political influence by impacting the way people in other states vote. This is due to the fact that if a person, for example, is supporting the effort of the Republicans. The person supports a specific person, however, they see that that person lost the primary in another state. This would cause the person to be more likely to support the previous winner, as the person would still want to make their vote count and vote for someone that they believe could win the nomination. The consequences are that some states (i.e. Iowa) that are smaller population wise may receive a greater political influence than they should due to the bandwagon effect of greater media coverage.
ReplyDeleteHorse race media coverage can be both good and bad. In theory, it would give each candidate an equal opportunity to get attention. On another, it may cause a smaller, more extreme or less serious contender get more attention than is needed or deserved. However, if there is really more information out for people to see about a candidate, and it is accurate, wouldn't that be able to have both positive and negative impacts on their opinion of that person? Another obvious con to it is that it tends to make a much bigger deal out of things than is necessary.
Voting schedules/caucases can impact voter interest/turnout in that if a state does have the first primary, people from that state feel that the may have a greater say in government (more efficacy). However, the contest between states to move primaries ahead of one another can sometimes can resemble a game. This may leave some voters saying "grow up" and doubting the efficiency and seriousness of their government.
Frontloading is obviously a problem in that it may give undue influence to one state and leave other, more important to the actual election, states with less say in who they have a choice to vote for. Although it is a problem, there may be nearly no Constitutional way around it. We may just have to accept it as one of the flaws of our system and realize that it also has some positive aspects.