Why do Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire primary first?

[JDPriestly]

The early primaries are held in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Iowa's will be February 1, 2016

California's will be June 7, 2016.

New York State votes April 19, 2016.


http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

The entire West Coast is ignored -- as usual.

I would like to see all the primaries across the country held on the same day. If the primaries can't all be held on the same day, the first primaries should include all states that represent more Americans and a wider variety of interests and economies.

We here in California and others in Western states don't have much say because the early primaries are used to predict the ultimate outcome.

None of the early primary states have large cities.

The result is that our administrations do not respond adequately to the needs of people living in heavily populated cities like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.

We need to have a say too. Our problems need attention.

Just confirms that the system is rigged to perpetuate conservative, right-wing leading political leadership. No wonder we have so much homelessness and crime. The homeless mostly live in big cities. The crime mostly occurs in big cities. And big cities have very little voice in the administration of justice and economic policy.


California will have 55 electoral college votes.



I'll stop for a moment there so you can register that number,, think about it and compare it to the following numbers.

Iowa will have only 6 electoral college votes.

New Hampshire: only 4 ecv

South Carolina: 9 ecv

New York: 29 ecv

Illinois: 20 ecv

Florida: 29 ecv

Texas: 38 ecv

Ohio: 18 ecv

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29v

The total number of electoral college votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina combined is 19. Less than one half the votes in California, and only two votes short of only 1/3 of the votes of California.

Yet those are the three tiny states that go first in our primaries.

Does that make sense?

Are they really the barometer, a measure of any sort for the majority of Americans?

Love the people in those states, but????? Democracy anyone?

Agriculture is very important, but our cities are in big trouble.

Is anyone out there?

This schedule seems so obviously wrong considering the population of California and its strategic geographical position.

[SheilaT]

1. Because. Just. Because.

It's been that way for a very long time now. For many cycles the first ones were in March, and then NH and Iowa got moved up to January.

It's insane. The primaries and caucuses start at least two months too early. I'm not in favor of a true national primary/caucus date, but maybe we could divide up the states, either by region or randomly, and then there are four different dates where all the states in that group vote together. And each election year, a different group goes first.

I do agree that two very small states get an inordinate amount of attention every four years.

[yeoman6987]

9. Have national primary day

And establishment candidates will win. No question about that.

[jwirr]

10. I think you are right about this.

[SheilaT]

11. Yep. Which is among the reasons I oppose a national primary day.

Our current system isn't too terrible, except that a handful of states have very late primary dates, left over from the 1960's, when not all states even had a primary or a caucus. And when people didn't start running a good four years out.

[JDPriestly]

13. My problem with it is that the states that go first do not contain the most typical or the

largest part of the population or even a good sample of the population and concerns of the country as a whole.

Rural issues concern them more than they do the huge number of people who live in say, New York state, Illinois, California, and Florida.

The three early states do not include a state west of the Rockies.

They are not representative of the country. And I think we need a different primary system that gives the many, many citizens of a huge state like California a fair voice in deciding the party candidates.

The fact that those three states go first pushes the entire country slightly to the right. Either New York or California should be among the earliest states.

[dsc]

2. A nationwide primary would have problems of its own

the role of money would be greatly increased which would be a very bad thing. Insurgent candidates would have a much harder time. I do have a problem with the early states and have had for some years. Most years I would suggest Maryland but since O'Malley is running that is out. In many respects NC would be good but it is the least unionized state in the country. Our urban areas are also not as gay friendly as many other state's urban areas. Michigan might be good.

[HereSince1628]

3. Partly because they -ARE- small I think.

This has worked pretty well for a long time.

Smallness means low costs and to some extent low risks. Barn-storming these states is a great place to test ideas, stump speechs, -AND- campaign staff.

If things don't work there is plenty of time to recover. Primaries in a place like California would not present low risks and would be expensive. Making a poor run or a public mistake there would likely doom losing candidates.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!, notwithstanding

[Journeyman]

4. Why not rotating primaries, so every State would get a chance to vote first. . .

Instead of the present, flawed process, where people in Iowa of all places have a disproportionate influence on who leaves the race early and who's seen as a "frontrunner," I favor dividing the nation into 6 electoral districts instead and the choice of which district should vote first would rotate among them, so every 24 years each of us would have an opportunity to vote first in the Presidential primary.

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, 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 the added benefit that citizens of each district could expect (indeed, demand) that politicians 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.

If the primaries were held every 3 weeks, the primary season could be over in some 3 to 4 months, which might help focus every voter's attention earlier in the process.

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

[Renew Deal]

5. Because that's what it says to do in the Bible

Proverbs 17 : 90
The Lord sayeth the cornland of Iowa, the coldland of Hampshire, and the baron South Carolina shall be first, and it was

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

6. You don't want all the primaries to be held on the same day....

Trust me, you don't.

Iowa and NH are swing states. Yes, they are a good barometer of where candidates stand to the "average American".

South Carolina, not so much anymore. Maybe 40 years ago.

I agree California's is too late. Don't understand why they don't get in on Super Tuesday. But if a primaries comes down to the wire, you'll appreciate the lateness.

[SonderWoman]

7. I'm for a rotating primary.

[Delmette]

8. I like that idea.

I'm in Montana and I never feel like my vote counts in primaries.

[JDPriestly]

14. That would be fair.

To be more accurate, Nevada does have a primary fairly early on, but it is a small state and not a coastal state.

Hey! New Hampshire is on the East Coast. Why not let Washington, Oregon or California vote along with Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina at the very least.

Who sets up this schedule.

[TSIAS]

12. I don't think the system is all bad

Now they've added Nevada as an early state, along with South Carolina. So there is a diversity in these early states.

The main reason I like Iowa and New Hampshire is that they lessen the impact of money. There is no way an underdog candidate like Sanders could compete in New York and California. The state's just too big, and eventually would come down to who could afford the most television ads.

Also, there is a fear of angering the states. Iowa and New Hampshire feel entitled to the first caucus and primary. Remember when Dean was caught on tape saying something bad about the Iowa caucuses. He was done shortly thereafter. I doubt either party wants to make the states mad by taking away the early primaries.