I'm in favor of keeping Iowa and NH first in the nation

[liberalpragmatist]

First off, let me state that I do think there needs to be primary reform. But I think that we would benefit from having a primary season that starts off in a small state where there can be real retail politicking. I fear that if we move to having large states be first in the nation, we kill the possibility of upsets and real retail politicking.

What I would favor is giving Iowa, NH, and DC the first opportunity to cast votes. Separate them by 3 weeks apiece, starting in late January, then hold a series of regional primaries (order determined by lottery each cycle) beginning in March or April. There's no reason to set on a nominee so quickly. And giving at least a month or two between the first three and the big regional primaries would do two things - it would, (1) give dark-horse candidates a real chance, and (2) force candidates to compete for a long time and get national attention, while allowing large, more diverse states to have a real say in the outcome.

[mark414]

1. my only problem with Iowa and NH...

is that they're way too white

but i don't pay enough attention to the primary deal to have a different solution, so...i don't even know why i'm posting.

anyways, my two cents

[blm]

2. I think it should be Iowa, NH and maybe Arkansas.

That way the states are still small enough for retail politicking and intense vetting while still getting a diverse opinion.

[Radical Activist]

10. I've thought that too

A small state that is more diverse is needed. Arkansas could be good, but I'm nervous about letting a state with one of the highest illiteracy rates and lowest education levels pick our President.

[hopein08]

3. Not me

I'm from PA and we don't get to have a primary until April (it was the 27th this year) but thankfully Gov. Rendell is looking to move it up. (I have yet to vote in a primary because my vote simply doesn't matter in the PA primary.) I think the earliest primaries (and the most decisive) should be in the states that have a wide variety of income levels, ethnic groups, jobs, and so much more.

I do agree though that there is no reason that the nominee should be picked so quickly. I say get rid of Super Tuesday and spread it all out over three or four months. Maybe have three or four states (picked by lottery would work) each week for twelve weeks.

Anyway, that's my theory!

[Selatius]

9. It sounds like a good idea

Super Tuesday is just front-loading the primary system.

[On the Road]

4. I Think Small States Should Go First

because it's the only way to keep retail politics in the presidential race.

Voters in IA and NH listen to candidates and often see them in person. Candidates press the flesh more than later in the process. A PA or CA primary would skew the results to the candidate with the most money and best ads.

[cally]

5. I have many problems with Iowa and NH

First, they don't reflect the nation. They are way too white, rural, and not Southern or Western. I would prefer a multi-state primary that includes states from different regions and more diversity.

Second, I went to NH to campaign. Those folks just took it for granted that they had this power IMHO. No state should have a lock on deciding the nominee. It should be rotated at the very least.

Third, I don't support any caucus state deciding our nominee. Too few Democrats attend the caucuses. I think we should have primaries to decide.

Fourth, just my frustration at the lack of influence of California. We give money, we support the candidates, and we are ignored. In that week I spent in NH, I had more opportunity to meet candidates than the entire election season in California. It's insane.

[Nordic]

6. how about a state with an actual city in it?

Neither of those states have real cities in them. Des Moines? Give me a break.

How about Ohio? Or Pennsylvania? I'd even prefer Missouri over Iowa, Missouri has a lot of diversity.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. But my proposal wouldn't give Iowa and NH a lock on the process

They'd be the first contest, but if there were enough time separating them from later contests in much larger, more diverse states that would still leave the nomination essentially open to candidates who compete better in more diverse settings.

[tjdee]

8. Diversity, exactly.

:thumbsup: