The real reason IA and NH have so much power

[CTLawGuy]

is because people in later states vote for the winners of those contests like sheep. They have very few actual delegates, and thus little actual power to choose the candidates.

If you want people to pay attention to your state, organize a campaign to vote for someone OTHER than who wins NH and IA. But the wrong thing to do is to give the DNC and the rules which were approved by the state parties the middle finger. All you are doing is creating unnecessary animus and headache.

If you want to change the primary system, do it next time around at the rule-drafting stage.

[jmp]

1. Next time ...

Always next time.

[CTLawGuy]

2. that's life

NT

[jmp]

4. Actually life is ...

States moving up their primaries and the DNC trying to disenfranchise Democrats.

[CTLawGuy]

21. they are disenfranching themselves by KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY not following the rules

If I don't like that the election is on the First Tuesday in Nov, I can't just try to vote in late October and then whine when they don't count my vote.

[BootinUp]

3. I would add

that people give money to the winners of those contests like (insert your own superlative).

[cobalt1999]

5. So why not just go with a National Primary?

If IA and NH shouldn't influence anyone, then the whole "helps the small money candidate" argument goes out the window with it.

I'm fine with that, make a one day national primary.

[jmp]

6. Because that would be democracy ...

And we can't have that.

[BootinUp]

7. The real answer is that

we should restore more time between the primaries. That reduces the effect of IA and NH. The whole purpose of moving the primaries closer together was to increase the power of the big money candidates. A National primary is the ultimate extension of that "mistake".

[cobalt1999]

8. No, the answer is everyone in every state getting an equal say.

It's one of those annoying democratic principles I believe in.

If money is a problem, setup national funding or figure out another answer that doesn't leave half the country without a choice.

[BootinUp]

9. Are we going to talk about dreams

or what might actually happen someday.

[cobalt1999]

10. What's going to actually happen is...

the big states will no longer wait patiently in line behind IA and NH.

The mutiny has already begun now with Florida and Michigan. When the next time comes to have a Calendar Committee, there will be either large set of early states, or regional voting. Your option of spreading it out even further is the least likely to happen, probably less likely than national funding.

Expect the primary schedule in 2012, to be very different, with a large early group followed by regional or national groups soon afterwards. The people in the large states are not willing to put up with the current system any longer.

[BootinUp]

11. Or

IA and NH move their primaries into the previous calendar year.

[Kagemusha]

12. What I don't get is S. Carolina.

The DNC has been busy punishing the states who've been trying to leapfrog the nationally designated early states but S. Carolina has to join in the madness and try to push Iowa into moving its primary into 2007, which would itself be breaking Democratic Party rules. So punishing rule-breakers to maintain order is rewarded by one of the beneficiaries of that punishment greedily moving its date up for more visibility, bringing additional chaos to the system.

It's like the early primary states want this to be a madhouse.

[jmp]

13. Every primary can be in 2007 ...

As far as I'm concerned. If Iowa wants to go on Halloween, I'm all for it.

[BootinUp]

14. The OP is basically correct

and I am suggesting that compacting the schedule only leads to more sheep votes and a lower quality campaign. At some point there would be an advantage to move back primaries away from IA and NH and that would also reduce their influence.

[jmp]

15. At no point would it be advantageous ...

To move your state primary back. The first states determine the front runners. That affects the flow of campaign funds ... and causes the "losers" to drop out of the race before the next round of states ever get to vote. Moving back so that you can have your choice of whoever Iowa & NH deemed worthy is nobody's idea of advantageous.

What I'd really like to see is a boycott of products & services from Iowa & NH until they break.

[BootinUp]

16. I can see where one can easily

reach that conclusion. But I disagree.

Also, the losers in your analysis would be losers in a national primary day before they ever started.

[jmp]

17. So the defenders of Iowa & NH keep saying.

There is no evidence to support that assertion.

[BootinUp]

19. If you had a national primary day

campaigning on the ground, and traveling to different states, would be less important than having a national television ad program. It would be more like the GE and only the biggest money candidates would have any shot at all. The rest would truly be third party candidates. Its not hard to imagine.

[jmp]

20. The biggest money candidates ...

Tthe whole premise of big money candidates is nonsense. Before Obama out raised everyone ... he was a nobody. The difference between him and Kucinich or Gravel is that he was able to convince Americans that with their support he could beat the Clinton juggernaut and win the general election. Dean did the same last election cycle.

Candidates with little or no support are not "disadvantaged" by early or late primaries. Only the contenders are.

[BootinUp]

22. I guess we see things differently

from my perspective Obama was a nobody until he was on tv, and until the media elite saw his talent and started writing articles about him.

[hfojvt]

24. with a national primary, you'd need run-offs, or instant run-off

Say Hillary wins a national primary by 38% to 25% Edwards (okay I am an Edwards supporter and I am dreaming) 17% Obama, 11% Dodd, 5% Biden, and 3% Kucinich, and 1% Richardson (and yes I like Richardson the least, except for Clinton, and I am trying to pretend Gravel does not exist). Should Hillary win the nomination when 62% voted "not Hillary"?

The campaigning is different too. With 8 people on the stage you don't have time for much detail or very many issues. I am not sure how "instant run-off" would work either.

Or they could just goto the convention like that and work out a deal, but voters don't have much of a say there.

Would it worked if voters ranked the candidates and then points were added up?

[jmp]

26. Obviously you would need a runoff.

Online voting would come in real handy for that.

[Bucky]

18. The advantage of having small states go first is the surprises you get

A nationwide primary would be an entirely tv-driven process. Whoever can get jillionaire corporations, lawyers, and investment bankers to bankroll their candidacy would automatically win and controll the process. Having a few small states go first before the madness swings into full force allows for an unknown and underfunded candidate to break through and break up the oligarchy. The current frontloading process limits democratic choices down to those who have fat cats supporting them.

[cuke]

23. If you want to change the primary system, you end up with the mess with have now

where a few states have said "To hell with the good of the country, the good of the party, and what we promised to do. We're gonna do whatever is best for us!"

I dont know why people don't understand that when you open up these processes to "reform", everyone angles for their own self-interests.

[cobalt1999]

25. So, never change a broken system?

Why open up these processes to reform!?! Gee. maybe people don't like them? Right now, any process is better than what we have.

[cuke]

27. More like "Be careful what you wish for"

and I don't think the primary schedule is "broken". I think it can be improved, but I'm not sure the benefits are worth the risks.

[cobalt1999]

28. Huge difference of opinion then.

I think this system is totally broken and violates every principle of democracy. Almost ANYTHING is better than what we have now.

[cuke]

32. You remind me of an old saying. I think it was by Churchill

"Almost ANYTHING is better than what we have now"

He said something like "Demccracy is a horrible system. The only thing worse than democracy is every other political system"

Im not saying that you were saying the same thing as Churchill. You just reminded me of the saying.

And yes, agree to disagree sounds about right. No problem. We're on the same side. We both want it to be as fair as possible.

[cobalt1999]

36. I'd just like to see democracy...

What we have isn't democracy, however, I do think we can agree to disagree. I take hope in the fact this system is dying regardless.

[NewHampster]

29. Here's the real reason

Where would you rather campaign in the fall?

[BootinUp]

30. Hilarious. Serious? n/t

[cobalt1999]

31. Yes, but where would you rather campaign in the winter...

[NewHampster]

33. Here

[cobalt1999]

34. Somehow, I don't see Hillary, Obama, or Edwards hitting the slopes.

and knocking on slopes in this has got to suck...

[NewHampster]

35. You win

[cobalt1999]

37. maybe we can switch for a week each winter...

You come down to my place in Florida and I take your place on the slopes. :hi:

[NewHampster]

38. hmmmmmmmmmm

[CTLawGuy]

39. I loves me some New England

:)

[denem]

40. This has probably been suggested before

A schedule of well spaced dates and a lottery for which states get which slots. If you can't be just be arbitrary.