The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns  Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible.  A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.