If we go again with a four state, ethnically and geographically diverse set

[Ravy]

that can vote in the early-vote "window" can we at least say that they have to be states that are blue or voted Democratic in the last presidential election?

I realize it might be hard to find a southern state that way, but we could be as geographically diverse as possible.

If Iowa and NH and SC and Nevada want to go in the first group, fine. Deliver the state for us in November. You can be considered next time.

They ought to pick the early voters, or come up with a new system shortly after this next election. Don't let the candidates start campaigning in NH and Iowa if they are no longer going to be first tier states. And, from NHs actions this year, leapfrogging Nevada, they should not be in the window under any circumstances. State law says they have to go first? No problem, we have an automatic sanction on the books, ready to go for you.

[dkf]

1. Hawaii should be there then.

[Ravy]

2. You know, that would suit me.

I might even take a leave of absense from my job and go to work for a campaign, at least, until after the primary *grin*

[bunnies]

3. NH doesnt give a shit if our delegates are taken away.

That was made clear this year. Its the revenue that NH cares about.

[Ravy]

4. Maybe Florida and Michigan can get the candidates to sign a pledge

that if someone campaigns in NH, they can't get delegates from our states.

That might be what it takes to stop it.

[bunnies]

5. good luck with that. nt

[anonymous171]

6. The first contests should be caucuses, IMO.

[Ravy]

9. I hope they don't allow caucuses next time.

People need a provision to vote absentee in case they have to work or travel the exact time of the election.

Delegates should be apportioned based on the turnout. And, at a .75 rate if you hold an open primary.

[anonymous171]

10. The first contests should be caucuses in order to level the playing field for grassroots candidates.

[Ravy]

11. Maybe a small state like Delaware with a primary...

to level the field. I think people should vote with equal access to the ballot box.

[anonymous171]

12. So do I. But I do like Caucuses.

[Ravy]

13. I used to, until I started travelling on business a lot.

But, I used to enjoy my softball league, too....

[ShadowLiberal]

7. The first contests should be in battleground states

As much as people don't like Iowa and New Hampshire going first, at least they are battleground states that have gone to each party once in the last 2 presidential elections. There's not really any other 'swing state' in the New England area, though Maine does have a large number of independents, it usually goes blue anyway.

New Mexico could be a good choice as well, their vote has deviated from the national popular vote (percentage-wise) by less then 1% combining I forget how many of the last few presidential elections, they're a definite swing state we should pay attention to.

At least one of the big states that are often fought over a lot in a General Election, (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan) should also go early. I wouldn't put 2 of them early though, that would drain too much money from poorer candidates when they need it most.

I'm sure there's some other swing states I'm forgetting to.

I will admit though, I live in a battleground state (PA) so I'm probably a bit biased here in thinking battleground states should go first.

[Ravy]

8. MO would be a good state for a battleground. I agree about NM.

Virginia is a possibility, as well.

But I also think some solidly blue states should be considered.