Does anyone like the idea of rotating primaries?

[Hawkeye-X]

The premise behind this is that they get the recognition and does not have to push their primaries up so early - the rest can vote on Super Tuesday if needed and spread out every few weeks...

That way, states doesn't have to fight who gets to go first....

2012 nominating states: IA, NH (by tradition), CO, FL, MI (to shut them up)

2016 nominating states: IA, NH, (by tradition), VA, WI, GA

2020 nominating states: IA, NH, (by tradition), OR, NM, IL

You get the idea - 3 states rotates, and they get their turn every couple of years...

I'm not sure if this was discussed yet, so here's the thread to discuss it - a break from bashing either Hillary or Obama.

Hawkeye-X

[BalancedGoat]

1. Works for me. n/t

[AllentownJake]

2. I kind of like what we do now

However I do think the DNC should re-evaluate their diversity states like you suggest. Giving each state a chance to be a diversity state. I don't see why another southern state could be chosen for SC or another western state could be subbed for NV.

Other than this being close and someone not leaving when they've lost...this isn't a bad system IMO

[depakid]

3. Seems to me that "tradition" is part and parcel to the problem

Iowa and New Hampshire have FAR TOO MUCH influence on the race and aren't close to being representative of the electorate as a whole.

[BOSSHOG]

4. I agree Hawkeye except

for the tradition angle. The tradition is merely an Iowa and a New Hampshire tradition. I suggest they find out what its like to have their primaries in April May or June. Iowans and New Hampshirites are no more important then any other segment of the population and the DNC and rnc should let them know of alternative scheduling.

AND THANKS FOR THE NON BASHING THREAD.

[Hawkeye-X]

7. Well, damn the tradition.. but allow the two small states

like, oh for example VT and AR get to go first. Even if they don't exactly reflect the electorate, but the concept/idea is still the same.

Hawkeye-X

[BOSSHOG]

11. I think

a rotational regional system would be fair. North, South, East, West, cut up into approximate equal population proportions and altnerating 1 through 4 every four years. What we have now is the height of absurdity.

[Skink]

13. Yes......

:beer:

[Condem]

17. Hey, Bosshog

We, in Iowa , take our shit seriously. Have for 30 years. Keep in mind, we sent Obama (and Kerry) forward.

[BOSSHOG]

18. Does that mean

no one else takes their shit seriously? Have Arizona or another state be first every primary and see how you like that arrangement. Every primary season I get a whiff of arrogance from Iowa and New Hampshire that they and only they can and should be first. That only solidifies my desire to a fair rotational system.

[NashVegas]

5. Yes, But Not Like That

Iowa and NH need to learn to share with the other kids - or have their delegates reduced by 3/4.

[msmcghee]

6. I don't understand why any state's voters have to . .

. . choose a nominee at the beginning of the campaign. I want some time to watch these people in action . . see how they run their campaign, how they respond to attacks, how they lay out their policy proposals. Then, I want to make my choice at the last possible day before the GE campaign - having the benefit of the most information before committing. This would also prevent the Republicans from only having to prepare to fight the one or two candidates we give them - several months before we should.

This whole system is bogus.

[Condem]

8. Thanks, Hawkeye!

For keeping Iowa first. We know our shit.

[JVS]

9. Not really.

[jillan]

10. I like it!

[seasat]

12. I like the idea of a rotating preprimary followed by rotating state primaries.

Plugging demographic data into a computer model could generate areas that represented the demographics of the US along with geographic diversity. Every 4 years, you'd randomly select different areas. These areas would hold a pre-primary. You could then take the top several polling candidates and make them eligible for full public financing.

I'd follow this a month later with state primaries in groups over a 4 month period. The states would be grouped to represent geographic and demographic diversity. You'd rotate which group goes first each election cycle. The order of the groups would also be randomly selected.

The pre-primary would let candidates with little name recognition and/or money get noticed through grass roots efforts and retail politics. It'd serve a purpose similar to having the small states go first but would reduce pandering to the interests of those states. Politicians would be forced to pander to us all. A secondary effect of breaking the country up into areas based on objective demographic data might encourage states to use similar methods in setting up their election districts eliminating gerrymandering (I'd love to see a constitutional amendment requiring this type of redistricting).

The rotating states would eliminate the who goes first arguments. Every state would eventually get a shot at being first. It'd make the primary season a little shorter and would lessen the amount of money blown during long drawn out campaigns. In addition, I'd make the delegate system more straight forward instead of this mixed up system that varies from state to state. It'd probably require a constitutional amendment to get a system like this in place.

I have no hopes of ever seeing something like this passed, but it would be my idea of an ideal primary system.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. No, just end front-loading

Iowa and New Hampshire's first in the nation status is only meaningful because of front-loading and the artificial concept of "momentum". Back in the old days they were just a way for unknown candidates to make themselves known.

[helderheid]

15. YES.

[Beregond2]

16. I prefer

the idea of four regional primaries that rotate. And the whole shebang shouldn't take more than two months to get through. This endless primary season is exhausting, expensive and pointless.

[JohnnyBoots]

19. They should do a lottery. N/T

[Orsino]

21. Good one!

A lottery well in advance, divvying up the states in waves, giving the states plenty of time to schedule.

[SoFlaJet]

20. I would like to see

EVERY state get a chance to go first and second HX...why should Iowans have like 800 times the power with their votes than we do.

[Lisa0825]

22. YES!

I have been advocating this for years! I am fine with Iowa and NH keeping their "first" status, but it is way past time to shuffle up the rest of the calendar!