Has the DNC ever considered rotating the state's Primary order?

[Inchworm]

By rotating I mean, rotating the date order of each state's primary. Maybe like whoever goes first this year goes last next time. I don't know. I am just curious.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I feel left out of all the fun here in North Carolina. I don't think our May 6th vote in the primaries will really mean much.

I guess both parties would have to make such a drastic change together?

I don't want to move to Iowa for voting fun :)

Links, ideas, slaps in the head welcomed.

:shrug:

[Recursion]

1. It was more important back when primaries lasted 4 weeks

But, yeah, the idea gets floated around every 4 years, and ever 4 years New Hampshirans and Iowans piss and moan about how much better, wiser, and more Solon-like they are at picking candidates than the rest of us simpletons.

[Inchworm]

3. One of those -you must hold a lantern when riding horse through town after dark- systems?

My understanding as to why the primaries aren't on the same day was how long it used to take the candidates to get to each state and do speeches.

Five months is quite a spread. They could hit all the states on a moped with that much time. It seems like a rule that needs revamped to this century.

[Lasher]

9. The current primary/caucus setup has evolved.

Before 1820, Democratic & Republican members of Congress would nominate a single presidential candidate from each party. By 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination was a national convention.

Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent. Progressive Era reformers looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses.

Brief history here

The initial candidate selection process was worse than anything we have now. Caucuses suck. Primary elections as we have them today are better. Rotating primaries would be an improvement. If all states had primaries and not caucuses, and if all of them fell on the same day, that would be best IMO.

[Inchworm]

14. Thanks for the info and I agree caucuses suck

It just seemed so high school.

This year was the first time I actually watched a complete caucus. It amazed me that this is how some states select a nominee. I guess it has worked for some time. I think that should be up to the state still though. So long as they give the DNC their delegate count when it is expected.

Could you imagine if Iowa was near the last state in a real close race? It seems we are just used to the way it goes and noone asks questions as to why the late states are so insignificant.

[plastichallway]

19. Why can republicans vote in our caucuses

and skew the results?
Given the unusual nature of this primary, why isn't Dean acting to keep
independents out. it's no secret that republicans voting as independents
will not be votiing for the dem candidate in the GE.

[Inchworm]

21. oh, a conspiricy!

I wonder how many Democrats are slipping in and toying with the rethug primaries.

:shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

30. It is easier for Republicans to vote in our primaries than the caucuses

BUT those same Republicans could just as easily vote in our caucuses if they don't have a good sign-in process.

If they have caucuses they should only allow the following to vote:

1) Precinct Chairs and Vice Chairs

2) County, District and/or State Convention Delegates

3) County and District Democratic Party officers

4) Volunteers that have worked in any campaign since the last Presidential election. Those involved in phone banking, precinct walkers, staffing party headquarters, staffing campaign headquarters, giving rides to voters.

5) Election workers at the polls.

6) Members of any local Democratic organization that works with the local party. Women's Club, Young Democrats, etc.

7) Attend local Jefferson Jackson Dinners.

8) Attend different events. Rallies, fundraisers.

[Lasher]

25. This was also the first year that I watched part of a caucus.

I thought I had tuned into the wrong channel and was watching a cattle auction.

[Inchworm]

26. I may be a cynic

But I'm sure "pillars of the community" have to posture for the other folks in the gym, whether they realize it or not. Wouldn't it suck if they made your boss go out and try to pull you to their group?

I guess it has worked for a long time and perhaps I just assume the worse, but it does seem caucuses are very faulty.

:shrug:

[Lasher]

27. I am a strong believer in the principle of majority rule

Anything that works against it is bad, IMO.

[Diane R]

2. I like that idea. Wash. State is never important to anyone. Iowa & N.H. should be last.

[Lasher]

4. Great idea that won't fly.

Stakeholders are entrenched.

[Inchworm]

6. Who do we have to write?

I mean.. fixing that small detail may inspire more people to participate in the process.

*readies pen hand*

[NastyRiffraff]

5. I think they need to rethink the entire primary system.

And no, I don't have the answers...wish I did. I know people have been talking about one, huge "primary day" where all states with primaries vote. The weakness in that is that it would quickly eliminate second-tier candidates.

I do think the caucus system has to go, but that's for the states to decide, as I understand it. I don't think the DNC can order it (although they can encourage it).

I don't think Iowa & New Hampshire have a God-given right to be first, no matter what they say. NH even has it written into their constitution! Maybe rotating some of the smaller states to be the first two?

However, the primaries this year have been the most exciting...EVER! I just hope the DNC gets the Florida & Michigan issue resolved.

[Inchworm]

7. Yea- I see a purpose for spreading it out

You mentioned the quick cutting of the 2nd tier candidates.

It would just be nice. It is kind of cool that the votes in May will matter in these primaries. It's been a good season.

:)

[XemaSab]

8. After having gone to Iowa and New Hampshire I agree that small states should go first

I've pondered this in the last few weeks, and I have a suggestion.

The DNC should take the 10 or so smallest states that have gone Blue in the last few elections and in, like, January of '07, draw a state out of the hat. So something like the following states could be selected:

Oregon
Hawaii
Delaware
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
Iowa
Nevada
New Mexico

Then, immediately afterwards, you pick another name out of the hat and schedule the next election for 2 weeks later.

Then you add in small red or swing states, which would be virtually all the southern, mountain, and plains states, and draw again for another election 2 weeks after the second election. Repeat the process to draw a fourth state that would have an election 6 weeks after the first state.

Then throw together all the states and draw 5 states at a time to go once every 2 weeks until the election is over. :)

-------------------

For example, if Oregon's the first state drawn, they can have their election on January 15th. Vermont (or whatever) can have their election on the first of February, followed by South Dakota on February 15th and Rhode Island on March 1.

On March 15th, Virginia, Minnesota, Arkansas, Idaho, and Alaska can go. On April 1, Wyoming, Arizona, Kansas, New Jersey, and Mississippi have their turn.

Or something to that effect.

This primary season has been very educational as far as the benefits of a protracted primary. :)

[NastyRiffraff]

10. I like your general idea, except I think it should be compressed

First two small states, whoever they are, vote on the same day, or perhaps within a couple of days of each other. Next primary (red states) is good...a couple of weeks later. After that, I think the time should be compressed, and maybe still have a Super Tuesday with a given number of states; after that, next primaries 2 weeks later, then every week.

That's an exhausting schedule, true, but as it is, no candidate can visit every state.

Hey, as I said, I don't have the answer! :D

[Inchworm]

11. We can come up with plans all day

And yours looks good.

But how would we get it enacted?

I'm thinking it isnt just the DNC and states that need to negotiate. I'm thinking the rethugs have to be in on the talks too. It probably costs each state hella to have Dem and Rep Primary on separate days.

It just seems logical to fix it.

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

13. Are you REALLY from North Carolina?

'Cause you don't sound like it.

"Hella?"

Yeah, I thought so. :P

[Inchworm]

16. Easy killer

hehe.

Hella is quite an amount :)

[XemaSab]

20. There's hella salmon in the Klamath.

There's hella snow at Tahoe.

There's hella traffic in the Bay Area.

I don't think there's hella anything in North Carolina. :P

[Inchworm]

22. hmm.. hella cornbread

Hella unemployed.

Hella birdies!

:silly:

:rofl:

[XemaSab]

23. .

:)

[Inchworm]

24. Turn on the light, open the door, let the moths in

and load the pistol with snake shot.

hehe, ok i quit :P

;)

[misanthrope]

28. It's even simpler than that...

...Take them all in ascending order of delegate counts, from smallest to highest. Have the four smallest in the first week, the next four smallest in the next week, and so on up the ladder. You'd have four a week for 13 weeks/three straight months or space them two weeks apart and drag it out to 26 weeks/six months. Either way, it allows underdogs a better chance and increases the value of the smaller/earlier states.

[shraby]

12. It would be nice if they could have

the southern states in Jan. Feb. and Mar. and the northern states in Apr. May and June. It's so friggin cold, icy roads, snow stormy to have them in Jan. Feb. Mar. It was 5 degrees for us to get out and vote and everything had a layer of ice under the layer of snow in Wisconsin. It would be a lot safer for the campaigns and voters in the snow states anyway.

[Inchworm]

17. There is another point

When the weather is intolerable in the caucus states, the decisions are made by those with 4 wheel-drives.

Just seems crazy.

:wtf:

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. Small states should go first

Iowa and New Hampshire are it, by tradition; the case for small states going first is that it's easier for candidates who may not have done so well in pre-primary fundraising to get their message before a voting public. It makes the process somewhat fairer. If large states with large media markets were first in the primary schedule, the cost of mounting an effective campaign would be too prohibitive for a good many potential candidates. YOu wouldn't see a Dennis Kucinich, for instance. And these 'longshot' candidates can play a valuable part through making their particular take on the issues part of the debate even if they don't get the nomination, or go on past IA and NH.

[Inchworm]

18. Excellent point that I didn't consider

My worry was a one day national primary sucking. I was thinking how unlikely it would be for any underfunded candidate to even declare their purpose in that situation. Like you said, large state campaigns off the bat would be unreachable as well.

good point.

[SoCalDem]

29. I would like 6 regional primaries. One a month Feb-July

Assuming there are still 3,253 pledged delegates available, the "magic number" would be 1,627..and NO "sooooper delegates".. They would be re-named VIPs and would get :

1. valet parking
2. front row seats
3. a very nice buffet just for them
4. lovely parting gifts

Iowa could still go first, as could NH..but both in January..BEFORE primary season starts..

The order, each election month would be determined by DNC head and RNC head alternately drawing numbers, until all were drawn.. they could flip for who goes first..

each region has a regional flavor, large & small municipalities, and major airports & media centers...so candidates could easily cover the area in a month.. Each primary could be set for the LAST Saturday of the month so more people could participate.
One debate per month in the FIRST week of the month..

and NO EARLY VOTING ALLOWED..(except for people who truly need absentee ballots due to travel or infirmity).. This early voting skews real support and campaign effectiveness, and highly favors the most well-known candidate..before any real campaigning even happens..

August could be spent preparing for the november election & resting up....with the convention (if they MUST) at the end of the month..

That leaves ALL of September & Octovber for the really heavy duty campaigning..