Primary Idea

[AnnieBW]

Instead of dragging the primary season out and having small states like Iowa and NH decide, here's my idea:

There are 50 states and 14 territories. This makes 64 voting areas altogether. You divide them into four units of 16, possibly in alphabetical order or just random order, and have a primary with 16 voting areas every Tuesday for a month. Nobody is allowed to drop out until the end. At the end, the person with the most victories is the nominee. This means that all states and territories get a say in who the nominee is.

Does this make sense?

[brooklynite]

1. Depends on what you want...

If you're going to do four Super Tuesdays in a month, you give the edge to candidates with more money who can afford major advertising. Most people will never have an opportunity to see a candidate in person.

I for one see value in having candidates start in small States. I will to see how they relate to voters, how they respond to unexpected questions, how they handle hecklers, etc.

[manor321]

2. We should definitely do things differently, but it is hard to change

Each state is independent in what they can do. The national party can try to penalize states that get out of line, but that didn't work so well for Republicans a few years ago.

I do want a shorter schedule. A shorter schedule does make it harder for smaller candidates though, because running for president is expensive.

I wholeheartedly endorse a random order for the states. It should absolutely be random each time.

[Garrett78]

5. 1 month is not nearly enough time, though. And as for randomness...

I want the initial handful of individual contests to take place in states that actually reflect our electorate. After that, I think it's fine to have a series of Super Tuesdays that consist of varying groups of states from one election to the next.

[world wide wally]

3. At least there would be method to the madness

[Garrett78]

4. We need to start off with several individual contests for a couple of reasons.

For starters, those who have less money and less name recognition should get a fair shake.

Secondly, by having several individual contests prior to the first Super Tuesday, the field gets whittled down. If we were to immediately start with 16 contests, the vote-splitting could allow a fringe candidate to come out on top. By the time the first Super Tuesday rolls around, I don't think we want 10-20 candidates in the race. But without there first being several individual contests, there's little incentive to drop out until after that first Super Tuesday. The results would be diluted, or misleading.

That said, changes need to be made. There shouldn't be any caucuses at all and the first 2 states should not be states that don't even remotely reflect our electorate. Illinois and Arizona or Maryland and Florida would be much better choices. But traditions have staying power.

I would start with a handful of individual contests in states that better reflect our electorate and then have a series of Super Tuesdays spread out over 3-4 months.