The primary schedule REALLY needs to change..It's way past due

[SoCalDem]

As a Californian, it aggravates me that by the time that people in MY state get to choose, there will be fewer candidates..

I really feel that the largest population centers should at least have a chance at the full slate of possibilities..

I would love to see the country split up logically, so that the BEST national candidate would be chosen, instead of "the one with more money".. More money does not guarantee much.(ex. GWB:puke:..)

With TV everywhere now, there is no reason for the "Iowa/New Hamsphire experience" that all the candidates feel compelled to have..

The country should be broken into 6 regions...Northeast....Southeast...Northern mid...Southern Mid...Northwest..Southwest..

This would include large population centers in EACH grooup, and would include "regional differences"..

They would need to do these weekly, starting in early Feb.. I would start in the "Mid" areas, and then alternate SW.SE.NE.NW (it could be changed every election cycle..)

Something like this would show which candidates were actually the favorites..not "what's left over"..

The candidates would probably prefer it too, since they could concentrate their campaigning in one area at a time and not have to slingshot all over the place

It would also be over in 6 wks, and whoever emerged could truly claim to be the "overall" favorite..

[Rowdyboy]

1. You're preaching to the choir in my case

Totally absurd to allow NH and Iowa determine who the rest of the country gets to select from. I might spread the regional primaries to two weeks apart, just to give them time to catch their breath between contests.

However, that change would require real leadership and a bit of cooperation/vision so don't hold your breath.

[beyurslf]

3. We should at least choose starting states that are demographically

closer to the rest of the country. Are there any non-white, non-xian, non-farmers in Iowa?

[Ficus]

13. ME

I am white but I am not a farmer. so there. And I have lots of non-white friends. Anyone who says we dont have minorities in Iowa has never been here.

[mistertrickster]

2. Agreed--Iowa and NH don't have very good track records of

picking winners. I got the feeling Iowans don't even like all the reportage and campaigning. Who decided to make them first anyway?

It's an old tradition that has nothing going for it . . . let's change it.

[Beaker]

4. Exactly.

Residents of Iowa and NH are the only ones with multiple opportunities to actually meet & speak- actually converse, with a candidate.
and both states are very unrepresentative of the U.S. as a whole.
I've endorsed the exact same type of primary schedule...and looking at your map, i'd include Alaska w/the Northwest group, and Hawaii w/the SW.

BTW- lil'ritchie daley, our mayor-for-life in chicago has suggested that the caucus system be used for all primaries, to save the states the cost of putting on an election. I think it would work in states where there aren't other issues on the ballot, but for instance, here in IL, we have an open senate seat coming up, and both parties have to whittle down their choices for that as well.

[SoCalDem]

6. It would actually be a money saver too

Ballots with all the candidates could be printed..(can you tell I prefer paper :evilgrin:?).. same one for all locations, and the areas that have local issues, could just add their own as a separate ballot to be used on the same day..

Candidates should be listed alphabetically.. we all grew up with that in school, and I believe in standardization when it comes to stuff like this,, politics is "political enough" as it is..:)

I would also prefer to have 4th & 5th graders actually design the ballot format.. Kids usually cut to the chase and look at things in simplistic fashion..

Adults are the ones who go out of their way to "make it easy", and in the process, %$#!~&^ everything up..:)

[fob]

5. That makes so much sense it will never happen.

Great idea though!

[displacedtexan]

7. Why Iowa comes first

From Slate:

In the late 1960s, the Iowa Democratic Party ruled that at least 30 days had to pass between the caucus and the district conventions (for which the caucuses select delegates), plus another 30 between the district conventions and the state convention (where Iowa's delegates are officially selected). The purpose of the ruling was to allow enough time to work out convention details, like the printing of pamphlets and the staffing of sites. The 1972 Democratic state convention was scheduled for May 20, which meant the latest the caucus could be held was Jan. 24. It thus supplanted New Hampshire as the first contest on the road to the White House, a distinction the Granite State had held since 1920.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094007

[HereSince1628]

8. Here's an idea'er

Why not reward good behavior?

Let the state with proportionally the largest turnout in the previous primary go first in the next primary.

Let the state with proportionally largest dem turnout in the GE be the second state.

[Johnyawl]

9. This has been talked about a great deal in recent years

The little states, especially the little states that primary early resist it, because then they would lose what little impact they have. The system that you're proposing makes a good deal of sense, except that nobody will ever campaign in the little states again. Why would anybody ever campaign in Iowa again, when Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin & Minnisota are choosing their delegates on the same day? And then people from those states will sit around and complain that they have no voice in the system.

[SoCalDem]

11. Flip it around.. Why should state with so FEW votes be "entitled"

to hog the lion's share of resources and time of the candidates, when they offer a very skewed view of what the eventual election would look like?

By using a regional system, they would probably see plenty of the candidates..

Why should two very small and very "unrepresentative" locations have MORE clout than any other place..

The regional map, as I have drawn it, gives equal representation to "all" slices of life.. Each region has rural,industrial,urban, "elite" and "non-elite".. I do not see any drawbacks at all, and the show of strength or lack of would be more indicative as the race continues..

South Carolina & Oklahoma voting for a "favorite-son" type of candidate is not indicative of the way that the rest of the south *might* vote, any more than New Hampshire voting for a fellow-northeasterner..

If we expect to shoot down the "he cannot win in ......" argument, the best way is to regionalize them, so that whomever emerges is seen as the one who competed in ALL areas, against ALL candidates, and was chosen because the MOST people in all areas chose them..not because , by the time it was "....."'s turn that's all they had left..

If you go to a buffet and choose the roast beef, is one to assume that roast beef is your favorite?? or was that choice made because by the time you got to the buffet line, the prime rib, ham, and shrimp were all gone?? :evilgrin:..

[PVnRT]

14. Far more people have no say in the system now

Iowa and New Hampshire seem to dominate the entire system - as far as I'm concerned, if no one ever campaigns in either state again, tough for them. No one EVER campaigns in Indiana. Ever. And I am sick and tired of it.

[Armstead]

10. I have mixed feelings about this system

On one hand, I like the idea of initial primaries in small states, where the candidates actually have to campaign as people, and interface with the real world to get started.

I think it also helps the rest of the nation get to know candidates on that basis vicariously too, before the candidates become isolated in media modulated national campaigns.

However, it does set up a "bandwagon effect" based on unrepresentative populations. Which does eliminate candidates before they get to prove themselves to the nation as a whole.

I dunno how to resolve that. Perhaps keep New Hampshire as a preview, but follow it with a national primary. That might give all of the candidates a better shot and give everyone the opportunity to epress their preferences simultaneously.

[SoCalDem]

12. I do not like a national primary for a few reasons..

Every candidacy has their "speed bump" periods.. It would be too easy for "intervention" if they were all on one day..

It's harder to "keep a story going" for 6 weeks, but a lot of mischief could occur if they were all on the same day...

I would also eliminate the concept of "open" primaries.. If you do not know that you are a democrat at least 6 weeks before the primary, you have no business selecting "our" candidate..

If you are registered independent, but every election cycle you "request" a republican ballot, and vote in their primary, you are *not* an independent.. same goes for dems..

The ballot that you request in the primary tells "what you are".. True independents probably don't give a hoot what's going on with primaries.. Primaries are the venue of the committed, not the uncommitted.

Party affiliation is of no real consequence in a general election, BUT in a primary it can be HUGE..