Historical question about primary calendar: why does the

[KingCharlemagne]

California primary come so late in the calendar that its results don't usually affect the outcome?

Who sets the schedule?

Although I am a Sanders supporter, I think Hillary would defeat him in California, were its primary first. But I think our state deserves more say-so in the party's nominee.

[tammywammy]

1. The California legislature sets the date.

http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Documents/Publications/_06_Elections_MasterMLR39.pdf

[LWolf]

2. California

affects the outcome no matter where it's placed, with the most delegates.

I am happy to see CA late; it means that my late primary, from a much smaller state, might mean something.

Frankly, it's not very motivating to have a primary AFTER the nomination has been determined.

[CrispyQ]

3. I don't get it either.

Why don't we have a national primary election that is held on the same day for all states? Wouldn't that be more fair?

[yeoman6987]

4. No. It would be a disaster

The smaller known candidates with little money wouldn't stand a chance. It would be the worst decision in history. Unless you want the big money candidates to win.

[Karma13612]

6. But what you have now is a great long torturous mess with

States near the end feeling disenfranchised and toothless. Having the primaries all at once means there is a sense of "oh well, candidate X is so far ahead, I might as well vote for that them".

I think our current system is not working.

[Journeyman]

5. The nation should be divided into 6 electoral districts. . . 

and which district should vote first would rotate among them, so every 24 years each of us would have an opportunity to vote first for President.

All states in an electoral district would have their primaries on the same day. This way, campaigns would focus on a select geographic region - costs would be lower, as there wouldn't be as much travel required, and the media buys would be more focused as well, since neighboring states would be addressed at the same time.

There'd be an added benefit as well, as the citizens of each district could expect (indeed, demand) that each politician address the regional issues of their concern as well as the national issues, thereby denying the candidates the opportunity to hide behind national platitudes instead of answering specific questions important to a select electorate.

With each primary set about 3 weeks apart, the selection process could be concluded inside 4 to 5 months -- plenty of time for late bloomers to arise, plenty of time for scoundrels to be exposed.

Meh. It'll probably never happen. Too many vested interests with too much at stake in the present, crippled system.

[HereSince1628]

7. I've thought something like that, too. Maybe let states with highest dem voter turnout

go first so there is a reward/incentive for GOTV. I really don't have a problem with some small states being early as that helps campaigns work on their organizations, and also have a few glitches without it killing their chances. Losing California right off the get-go would be tough.

Maybe have the 6 districts constructed from non-contiguous states to cut down on pandering to regional interests.

Maybe even subdivide big population states so that places like California, Texas, New York get not only some chance to influence early results, but to also respond to issues that arise between the beginning and the end of the campaign season.

[SCantiGOP]

9. Journeyman:

I have advocated this for years, usually with 10 districts and 2 weeks between elections.
Why should Iowa (corn), New Hampshire (thinks it is part of Canada), and my state of South Carolina (thinks it is still in the Confederacy) get to effectively choose the nominees each cycle?
Doing away with gerrymandered districts and setting up a rational primary system would be great and positive steps forward for American democracy.

[brooklynite]

8. So you want six Super Tuesday's...

...which would also limit retail campaigning and give the edge to nationally known candidates with money.

[KingCharlemagne]

10. Hunh? Is your question intended for someone else

in this thread?