Priebus: Iowa and New Hampshire Aren’t “Sacred Cows” After 2016

[Skye]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/73980/rnc-chair-iowa-new-hampshire-arent-sacred-cows-after-2016

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I'm taking this the way that Iowa and NH will no longer be the first states after this primary season, IMHO we should have a nationwide primary....but oh well.

[The Other Castro]

RIP Priebus. Cause of death: Corn ethanol poisoning.

[Lief 🗽]

They need to pick some states that aren't full of old white people. Maybe Colorado, so that candidates can shamelessly whore themselves out to the weed industry instead of the ethanol industry?

[Green Line]

Priebus isn't likely to be RNC chairman after this election, he's already served for a long time.  I don't think his word on this means much.  Does he think we're going to see a bunch of states going in early January or even before the new year?  Iowa and NH will just vote to move their elections up as far as need be to stay 1 and 2.  

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Put California, New York, and Texas first. Diverse, and if you can't raise the money to compete you simply don't belong.

[Tender Branson]

It would be cool if the US would use the following system:

Create 5-6 groups of states (with about 10-12 each, incl. the overseas territories), which are determined by a group draw (similar to the Champions League draw).

The primaries would be held every 2 or 3 weeks after the first one, giving candidates some time to campaign for the states in each group.

The votes are not counted (or released) in every group until the last group has voted, so that voters in the following groups are not influenced by the results of the previous groups.

[RFayette]

Put California, New York, and Texas first. Diverse, and if you can't raise the money to compete you simply don't belong.

[Lief 🗽]

Put California, New York, and Texas first. Diverse, and if you can't raise the money to compete you simply don't belong.

Yup, this is the correct answer. Maybe add Illinois too so that the Midwest is represented.

[Simfan34]

Put California, New York, and Texas first. Diverse, and if you can't raise the money to compete you simply don't belong.

Curious username you have there!

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

Put California, New York, and Texas first. Diverse, and if you can't raise the money to compete you simply don't belong.

Agreed. This idea of having small states go first to give low money candidates a "fighting" chance doesn't apply in a Post-Citizen's United World with Super Pacs and Self financiers like Trump.

I'd make the order strictly by population size of each state:
1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
etc.

[Mogrovejo]

About time. I'd prefer a regional rotating system myself.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Put California, New York, and Texas first. Diverse, and if you can't raise the money to compete you simply don't belong.

All of them are too inelastic and polarized and the minority party in each state is way afield from representing the rest of the country. I would go with Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio.

[Mister Mets]

This is great.

I wrote this elesewhere, but we need to change the way we do things now.

I think it's better to have some early primaries. National primaries provide too much of a benefit to a frontrunner with high name recognition. An instant runoff system in a national primary only functions if voters are familiar with national candidates.

Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't be the first states to go, since it means ambitious politicians spend their political careers concerned about making people from there happy, which has political ramifications. Iowa’s consistent first in the nation caucus results in greater support for wasteful farm subsidies like Corn Ethanol. An anti-urban bias in government spending may be exaggerated by the emphasis on states lacking major metropolitan centers during the presidential primaries. It’s probably also not a coincidence that the 2012 Presidential election was between two men who held statewide office in the states with the major metropolitan areas near the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

In defense to Iowa and New Hampshire, the electorates of these two states have demonstrated a degree of independence. 2000 and 2004 were close elections, but while voters in most states stayed with the same political party, Iowa and New Hampshire were among the three states that changed allegiance. Of course, the level of attention paid to these two states by members of both political parties might be a factor in that.

So I'd like to see a different selection of picking early primary states. I like the idea of having the early primaries be in bellweather states, as that allows both political parties the opportunity to nominate strong General-Election candidates. So, we could have the first primaries be in states that are the true bellwethers. It could start with the state that matched the popular vote of the entire nation most closely in the previous presidential cycle.

In 2012 and 2008, that state was Virginia. Obama won it by 6.3% in 2008, which was fairly close to his 7.2% margin of victory over McCain in the popular vote. In 2004, that state was Ohio, which President Bush won by 2.11%, which was close to his 2.4% margin of victory over Kerry in the popular vote. In 2000, that state was Oregon, which Gore won by 0.44%, which was close to his 0.5% “win” over President Bush in the popular vote.

The second state in the presidential primary cycle could be the state that was second-closest to the General Election results, in a way that slightly benefited the political party under-represented by the bellwether state. Since Virginia’s results actually favored the Republicans by one percent, it would be fair for the next state in a presidential primary to be one that was slightly more favorable for the Democratic party than the national popular vote. So that would be Colorado, which President Obama won by 5.27% in 2012, and 8.95% in 2008. If a third party candidate did well, the process would continue with a third state which closely matched the General Election results in a way that gave a slight advantage to the political party which under-performed slightly in the first two states.

As Iowa and New Hampshire are close to bellwethers, the states might sometimes become the first primaries in the nation. And that’s completely fine. But it gives other states and their constituencies a shot. And it means that you’ll have less politicians concerned about how a vote will affect their standing with New Hampshire primary voters a decade later.

[King]

New Mexico would be the perfect first primary state. We've voted for the winner in every election since becoming a state except for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Our southern CD is solid Republican, and filled with redneck cow farmers. Our northern CD is solid Democrat and filled with yuppie liberal intellectual elites. Our central CD is our largest city mostly latino but has a black part of town in the southside. State legislature has Republican House, a Democratic Senate.  Republican Governor. Democratic Senators.

We are America.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I used to think a nationwide primary would be best, but then realized it's better to have some small states (or areas) go first so that the establishment candidate doesn't win every time.

[Averroës Nix]

It makes sense to allow smaller states to take precedence, although it would be more fair if the early primaries represented a broader cross-section of the electorate. DC, Missisippi, and New Mexico are all good candidates for early primary status.

It's not feasible, but I'd love to have primaries by Congressional District, in random order, with a few holding primaries in the earliest weeks and larger numbers voting simultaneously later.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Perhaps a system where there is a random drawing from a prescreened group of states.  So you could toss Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, the Dakotas etc and concentrate on slightly more populous states.   Then put in some kind of diversity filter.  After that maybe six months or a year before the primaries start do a random drawing to determine the order.  And what you can do is make a regional pool so if a state in that pool is chosen as #1 then that pool is excluded from the drawing for #2 and continue like that until there is a state from every region.  Then begin the process again with all prescreened states competing.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This whole primary system is ridiculous.

Here's my solution:  Have a single national primary date in March, in which 1/3 of the elected delegates to the convention are selected from each state.   After that, have a second primary in May, during which the remaining 2/3 of delegates are selected.  Candidates may enter all or some of the state primaries, but they will all be held on different days.

Candidates must pay two (2) filing fees, and the second filing fee in each state.

What I believe that something like this will do is give proportional influence to each state.  The Oregon and California primaries, for example, are anachronisms; they were designed as a Western Swing in the old days when the primaries weren't as important.  Right now, these states, as well as a number of big Midwestern and Northeastern states don't have a lot of input.

It's time to end the cottage industry for Iowa and New Hampshire, period.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Iowa and New Hampshire are two very small, very important swing states. The party that changed their primary process would be hurt in those states.

[Kingpoleon]

Put California, New York, and Texas first. Diverse, and if you can't raise the money to compete you simply don't belong.

All of them are too inelastic and polarized and the minority party in each state is way afield from representing the rest of the country. I would go with Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio.

1. Ohio
2. Oregon
3. North Carolina

This allows the different regions to be fairly and equally represented. All other combinations are too close or lack diversity or unrepresentative of the national parties.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Put California, New York, and Texas first. Diverse, and if you can't raise the money to compete you simply don't belong.

All of them are too inelastic and polarized and the minority party in each state is way afield from representing the rest of the country. I would go with Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio.

1. Ohio
2. Oregon
3. North Carolina

This allows the different regions to be fairly and equally represented. All other combinations are too close or lack diversity or unrepresentative of the national parties.

No!  We're already getting spammed with ads

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

A swing state metric is also incredibly poor: some states are swing states because there is a reasonably sized pool of actual undecided voters; a lot of states are swing states due to a battle of who can better turn out their partisans (e.g. elastic vs inelastic).

Starting with 3-5 of the largest states and allocating most delegates by congressional districts (with some left over for total pop vote, to be split by exceeding some minimum threshold), is ideal. It acts as a heavy barrier and only allows real contenders through.

[FLgirl]

I don't know what the best system would be, but damn am I glad this is being brought up, and I hope, hope, hope we see some real changes on this front. The country needs to stop being held hostage by two states.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I used to think a nationwide primary would be best, but then realized it's better to have some small states (or areas) go first so that the establishment candidate doesn't win every time.

Even if the winners of those states aren't representative of the party as a whole?