I sure hope that California and other progressive states (such as NY) vote earlier in the primary!

[Akamai]

This would help others to see that most Americans are indeed progressive, and the effing press would not have to keep asking people whether progressives can win a national ticket.

This would scare the effing hell out of the Republicans.

Our primary voting schedule was scheduled with the hope that the Southern States could be encouraged to vote Democratic. Didn't work out that way, and now the Southern Primaries bring about a conservative Democratic candidate who supports the military more than most people do, are more opposed to extending the social safety net than most people, are more opposed to raising taxes on the wealthier Americans, are less concerned about climate change, don't give a rat's pattooty about equal rights, women's rights, immigration, etc.

Letting California and New York State vote earlier would be a HUGE improvement in the electoral process!

Any thoughts?

[temporary311]

1. I'd like to see a weighted system

based on how narrowly a state was won or lost in the previous general.

So, for example, states that were won or lost by+/- 2.5% would get preference, then states that were by 5, then 10. I don't mind if NH and Iowa keep their top spots, but after that things should shift around.

Aside from that, I agree about deep South states getting to go so early relative to their importance to us in the general. It seems to serve to do nothing but trip up more liberal candidates and to tip things in more conservative candidate's favor, which I'm sure is considered a feature, not a bug, by some.

[Akamai]

4. Good thoughts on this! But I don't think I would put states that lost hugely in the

first part of the primaries, for the reasons you outlined.

I would want to put big progressive states early and this would help voters to realize that progressive values -- the ones this country is built on -- has a huge support among the American people.

And I agree with you about the "feature-bug" aspect of this. A lot of the Republican eye-shade crew will do whatever it takes to win -- anyone who doubts that has absolutely not been paying attention to such issues as voter id, closing voting places in black neighborhoods, crosscheck, etc.

[msongs]

2. in 2020 CA and NY can go first. NH and Iowa can go last. its only fair to swap now and then **

** assumes there will be an election in 2020

[NCTraveler]

10. Why wouldn't there be? nt.

[putitinD]

3. the entire Country needs to hold primary elections ON THE SAME DAY.

[Akamai]

5. Interesting proposition. I am not sure I am with this but have not considered it.

I think one reason for rolling primaries is that one can see over the course of the primaries what appeals to voters. One of my concerns, for instance, is that really wealthy entities can manipulate the press, voters, etc., to get them to believe that right-wing values are the ones that most voters support.

With rolling primaries we can put some major ideas/issues to the test.

Do we want to improve the safety net? reduce foreign entanglements? concern ourselves with climate change? support women's rights? etc.

We would get a much more complete laying out of what positions with rolling primaries

But that really is an interesting idea.

[putitinD]

6. imagine what a mess we woud have if we had a rolling general, for the same exact reason, we need

a single day for the primary.

[pnwmom]

7. That would advantage the most well known candidates.

Is that what you have in mind?

[putitinD]

8. no, it would give every candidate a fair and equal chance.

[mythology]

9. No it really wouldn't

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-national-primary-a-good-idea/a-national-primary-wouldnt-work

"First, a national primary would give a huge advantage to better-known, better-funded candidates since only they would be able to finance the expensive advertising and large campaign operation needed to run a national "get out the vote" effort in all states. Lesser-known candidates without extensive campaign operations would not have an opportunity to reach out to voters in retail-style fashion and build support. Moreover, densely populated states with higher delegate counts would become the dominant focus of the campaigns and the media."

There is a zero percent chance Obama would have won the nomination in 2008 with a single day primary.

[jalan48]

11. I agree. Early primaries, especially in the South, favor more conservative candidates.

The process helps present the narrative that American's want politicians with political views further to the right. Time to let the more liberal states lead the way, we never win the Southern states in the general election anyway.

[JI7]

14. no it doesn't. it favors whoever can appeal to black voters who are the most loyal dem voters

[jalan48]

17. The entire West Coast gave all its electoral votes to Clinton. It's our turn to go first.

[JI7]

21. states deide when to set their primary.

[NobodyHere]

26. Try telling Michigan that

[JI7]

28. california did it to save money

[NobodyHere]

32. Michigan tried it

and got their votes taken away from them by the party.

[JI7]

33. in 2008

[JI7]

12. so black voters who vote dem the most should go last ?

Southern primaries in the dem primary it's about the black vote. And Obama won those.

Hillary won the california and ny primary also.

Please stop with this bs about southern prmaries as if those are the same ones that vote republican in the GE when that is not the case.

[JI7]

13. southern dem primary is largely black voters and they do not support those positions you claim

Interesting you complain about the southern primaries but not iowa and nh when those are not exactly liberal states .

[Akamai]

15. And still those southern states reliably go for Republicans ... why handcuff ourselves by appealing

to voters in those states in the early primaries?

Anyone who thinks we are going to win Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, etc., soon is not looking at the history of the electoral votes.

Candidates with early primaries in the South are forced to support the military view of things, are forced to appeal to God as well as guns, etc.

Just my two cents.

[JI7]

22. black voters are reliably dem. far more than whites in the bluest states

[Orsino]

16. Because frightened Republicans are known for making better decisions?

Or for staying away from the polls?

[Garrett78]

18. First of all, the primary schedule is being somewhat misrepresented.

The order was as follows:

IA
NH
NV
SC
AL, American Samoa, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, OK, TN, TX, VA, VT
KS, LA, NE
ME
MI, MS
FL, IL, MO, NC, OH
AZ, ID, UT
AK, HI, WA

That was the order through the end of March.

Secondly, we're talking about Democratic primaries. One shouldn't conflate the Democratic electorate of South Carolina or Georgia with the overall electorate in those states. And, as others have pointed out, black folks represent a substantial portion of the national Democratic electorate.

Third, as I pointed out during the primary, most Deep South states are *less* red than a hell of a lot of other states. In the primary, for what it's worth, it was actually Sanders who did best in the reddest states.

Fourth, I think the most important thing is doing away with caucuses.

All that said, I'm all for a completely different way of conducting the primary. The idea I've proposed previously is to have 12-13 states (representing every region) vote every 4-6 weeks. So, a group of 12-13 would vote in early February, another 12-13 would vote in mid-March, and so on. Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the like would be fit in there somewhere.

Perhaps the first grouping could be a little lighter in terms of delegates, so that a candidate who isn't as well-known or as well-funded won't be out of the running right off the bat. But all candidates would have plenty of time to campaign and debate leading up to that first vote in February.

For example, the following states could make up one group: MA, PA, NC, FL, KY IL, TX, SD, AZ, NV, WY and OR. Every region of the US is represented.

An alternative would be to have each group consist of states from more or less the same region so as to make traveling much easier/more economical. Every contested primary, the order would rotate. So, one group might consist of the following: WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM, NV, UT, ID, MT, WY, CO and TX. If that group went first in 2020, it would go last in 2028 the next time there's a contested primary (I'm making the assumption that a Dem will win the general election in 2020 and be unopposed in the 2024 primary).

[Akamai]

19. You've thought a lot about this! Good for you! I guess one of my beliefs is that the big states of

California and New York should go earlier than they do -- now they are nowhere on your list of states that vote through the end of March. I wouldn't put them first (were I god) but I sure wouldn't put them at the end.

Yes, Bernie did well in a some red states but if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016 you will see in map that the Southern States all went for Hillary, and those are the very states that is difficult for Dems to win in the national.

The current order of states was designed to encourage the Southern States to become more liberal/progressive but it hasn't happened yet and there is little indication that it will happen in the immediate future.

[Garrett78]

23. Again, though, most of the Deep South states are far from being the reddest.

See link in my last post.

Clinton did well in the Deep South (as well as IL, MD, OH, NY, NJ, PA, etc.) because she had the backing of African Americans, a key constituency. You pretty much have to do well in those states if you're going to be the Democratic Party nominee for POTUS.

I don't know that the current order was really designed with much intention, and the order changes. And my point in listing what the actual order was is that the Deep South didn't dominate the early primaries as much as some claim. But you're right, of course, that NY and especially CA were late in the process. I don't think having them earlier would have made much difference, though.

[Akamai]

29. I do believe that the deep South States emphasize guns, gays,

And God too much -- being against gays, of course.

Those say yes shape too much the rest of the races, I think.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts on this issue!

[Garrett78]

30. But we mustn't conflate the Democratic electorate with the Republican electorate.

After all, we're talking about Democratic primaries.

Now, if you want to talk about states that truly don't represent the Democratic electorate, look to ID, WY, ND, SD, KS, OK, etc.

If any single state is going to go first, make it Illinois. But I prefer my idea of having 4 groups of 12-13 states.

[JI7]

34. especially since the gun control issue came up more during the southern primaries since most black

voters support gun control.

[Exilednight]

20. Illinois should go first.

Demographically, by all measurable standards including race, economics and self political affiliation, they are closest to America as a whole.

[Garrett78]

24. I've said before that if any single state is going to lead things off, it should be Illinois.

IA and NH might be fine for Republicans, but the Democratic electorate is quite diverse.

But I'm not sure any single state should have that much influence.

[JI7]

25. the southern states helped Obama become the nominee

If cali and ny went first unlikely Obama would have been the nominee.

[NobodyHere]

27. I've always been in favor with letting states with the highest voter turnout go first

[SaschaHM]

31. So we're just giving up the whole 50-state thing, right?

Diminishing the role that Democrats in Red and Purple States play in organizing around and picking our nominee only weakens us in those states. We may not go blue every presidential cycle, but we bolster Dem numbers in congress and more importantly, in the state houses. Look how the republicans were abled to hamper the Medicaid expansion by controlling the state houses.

Secondly, Dems do care about those issues that you mentioned. Do not conflate the views of the republican electorate with that of the Democratic one because while Dems may be living high on the hog off progressive legislation in solid blue states, we are fighting tooth and nail down south just to get it.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Why should the same states get to go first every four damn years?

It should be rotating. If you went first last time you go last next time.

[SaschaHM]

38. Absent Iowa and New Hampshire...

the states pick when they go. It really is up to the states/state parties. No one is forcing CA to go last. I'd love it if Super Tuesday decisively locked up the nomination in 2020 by awarding an overwhelming amount of delegates.

[former9thward]

39. No the states don't pick when they go.

Ask Michigan and Florida which tried to move up their primaries and got their delegates taken away from them by the DNC.

[SaschaHM]

40. They tried to move their primaries ahead of a specific date cutoff Feb 5.

They could have chosen any date after those. The specific dates of the primaries are not chosen by the DNC.


Yes, the states do pick where they go. I'll add in the caveat that there may be limitations as to when they can occur.

[former9thward]

41. The DNC should have no role in this.

Let the states and the people vote when they want. Anything else is voter manipulation.

[SaschaHM]

43. What? That's a reach.

Some structure is warranted. There needs to be a set in stone beginning and end date. Otherwise, you would have primaries in August and July and that's not good for the party or the nominee.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. And why the hell is it written in stone for those two states?

Like I said, we need to shake up the entire process.

[crazycatlady]

35. NJ used to vote earlier

In 2008 they were a Super Tuesday state and voted in February.

Prior to the 2012 elections, they moved the presidential primary to June to vote at the same time as their existing primaries. The move was to save money.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Yeah, we need to rotate the schedule, at the very least.