Opinion of IA and NH Getting to Go First

[/]

It kind of annoys me how these two states (for no good reason) get so much attention from the candidates and media whilst all of the others are relatively unimportant, by far. Same thing goes with OH, VA, FL, etc. during the GE.

Does anyone have a defense of these two states' privileges?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I see no reason why they shouldn't go first, for whatever it's worth. Why fix what clearly isn't broken?

[dudeabides]

I believe it would be wise if we had 5 days of primaries; 10 states per day based on population size, and include the territories along with the last states to go.

[/]

I think it should just be a nationwide popular vote held everywhere on the same day (AV, of course).

[Bismarck]

I'd be okay with Iowa if it wasn't a caucus.

[The Mikado]

Every cycle someone says "this is the one that IA and NH lose their seat at the top" and every cycle it doesn't pan out.

EDIT: Agree with the above poster. The Iowa Caucus is a grotesque farce. I have no real qualm with the New Hampshire Primary, which is an actual election.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Why should the same two states, which together have a little over 1% of the population, and which are disproportionately white and rural, always get to hold the first primary and first caucus? Conversely, why should the good people of Iowa and New Hampshire be subjected to two years of attack ads every cycle? The only fair way to assign the order of primaries would be to hold a lottery before the start of each cycle, possibly with the stipulation that the same state can't go first twice in a row.

[pikachu]

Horrible practice. My personal preference is an IRV national primary, but I understand that logistically that'd be a nightmare. More realistically, I hope for a rotating calendar which is more compact. Ofc, I don't actually expect anything to change.

It kind of annoys me how these two states (for no good reason) get so much attention from the candidates and media whilst all of the others are relatively unimportant, by far. Same thing goes with OH, VA, FL, etc. during the GE.

Does anyone have a defense of these two states' privileges?

They are important in the GE for a reason though. Not necessarily a good reason, but a reason.

[heatmaster]

We all know where that proposal of N.H. and Iowa not being "sacred cows" beyond 2016 is going to go...in the toilet!  Similar proposals in the past have foundered. There is a good reason why, logic dictates,  if it ain't broke, don't fix it!..the idea of tinkering with something because you want a different result or dynamic doesn't always work or have the desired effect.  So good luck with that idea Preibus! 😉

[Clark Kent]

I think it should just be a nationwide popular vote held everywhere on the same day (AV, of course).

Agreed

[°Leprechaun]

It is part of a much bigger problem that goes pretty much ignored. We need real 'democratic' reform in so many ways, but people are so locked into the foolish "lesser of two evils" "two party system" mindset and are more focused on a few narrow issues.
There are many ways to reform the system (not just irv, although that is one reasonable way), but until voters demand change nothing is going to change.
Most people are pretty unhappy with both parties and their do nothing attitudes which causes gridlock, and yet they refuse to even consider voting any other way than they do which means that in a sense they get what they vote for. I wonder how many of them are supporting Trump for this reason, although I don't see him making any reforms in voting.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think it should just be a nationwide popular vote held everywhere on the same day (AV, of course).

Agreed

RIP news media, if that happens.

But a good and obvious solution, which is why it would never happen.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

For some strange reasons, random citizens think they should be allowed to democratically choose party nominees. Sorry, that's not how any of this works.

On the GOP side, you get a sane northeasterner or other good fiscal conservative vs. a SoCon with no chance of the presidency just so the Evangelicals feel happy. Then SC votes in line or for a good ol' boy, further diminishing the SoCon's standing.

Democrats theoretically should get the most progressive they want as their white population dictates the outcome.

Don't break the system. It's perfect. Democracy isn't.

I would like the rest of the states to be arranged into groups or something better. I liked the alternating proposal from a few years back. Some sort of detail for taking a couple states from each region on each voting day would be cool.

[°Leprechaun]

Don't break the system. It's perfect. Democracy isn't.

I would like the rest of the states to be arranged into groups or something better. I liked the alternating proposal from a few years back. Some sort of detail for taking a couple states from each region on each voting day would be cool.

You say that the system is perfect and in the next paragraph advocate changing it.
Why isn't that a contradiction?
If the alternative of a nationwide primary is not ideal, that still doesn't mean that the same three states should always get to go first. There is a certain logic to having the current system since it eliminates weak candidates, however, so I can understand your argument a little bit.

[Pyro]

Should be a national primary, obv.

Why should the same two states, which together have a little over 1% of the population, and which are disproportionately white and rural, always get to hold the first primary and first caucus?

Still, in the end, it's just a symptom of a much larger issue pertaining to the American oligarchy.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Don't break the system. It's perfect. Democracy isn't.

I would like the rest of the states to be arranged into groups or something better. I liked the alternating proposal from a few years back. Some sort of detail for taking a couple states from each region on each voting day would be cool.

You say that the system is perfect and in the next paragraph advocate changing it.
Why isn't that a contradiction?
If the alternative of a nationwide primary is not ideal, that still doesn't mean that the same three states should always get to go first. There is a certain logic to having the current system since it eliminates weak candidates, however, so I can understand your argument a little bit.

It's not a contradiction. The traditional aspects of the system work. The parts that change every single cycle dont. SEC primary day is ludicrous. There should be a sensible arrangement similar to what the first three do.

[°Leprechaun]

Don't break the system. It's perfect. Democracy isn't.

I would like the rest of the states to be arranged into groups or something better. I liked the alternating proposal from a few years back. Some sort of detail for taking a couple states from each region on each voting day would be cool.

You say that the system is perfect and in the next paragraph advocate changing it.
Why isn't that a contradiction?
If the alternative of a nationwide primary is not ideal, that still doesn't mean that the same three states should always get to go first. There is a certain logic to having the current system since it eliminates weak candidates, however, so I can understand your argument a little bit.

It's not a contradiction. The traditional aspects of the system work. The parts that change every single cycle dont. SEC primary day is ludicrous. There should be a sensible arrangement similar to what the first three do.

ok, thanks for clarifying that

[Orser67]

I don't think it's fair, but I also think that there are some benefits to having two fairly small states consistently go first. I'd imagine many in both states have become fairly sophisticated when it comes to picking candidates. Maybe the best system would involve those two states as carve outs along with a lottery to determine two other carve out states, and then a second lottery to determine the order among the carve out states.

[/]

It kind of annoys me how these two states (for no good reason) get so much attention from the candidates and media whilst all of the others are relatively unimportant, by far. Same thing goes with OH, VA, FL, etc. during the GE.

Does anyone have a defense of these two states' privileges?

They are important in the GE for a reason though. Not necessarily a good reason, but a reason.

That's the point.

[Nyvin]

NH and IA certainly don't represent the country as a whole very well, that's for sure.