Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Somebody recently mentioned that one reason they liked the current order in which states vote because the small states get to go first. But that's not even close to true. New Hampshire has a bigger population than 9 states and the District of Columbia. So what would it look like if we ran with the concept, "Smallest state first, biggest state last?" For one thing, it would bring more attention to the real small states. Without assigning any dates, the order would look like this: 1.) Wyoming - 568,158 (Red State)
2.) District of Columbia - 617,996 (Blue "State")
3.) Vermont - 626,431 (Blue State)
4.) North Dakota - 683,932 (Red State)
5.) Alaska - 722,718 (Red State)
6.) South Dakota - 824,082 (Red State)
7.) Delaware - 907,135 (Blue State)
8.) Montana - 998,199 (Red State)
9.) Rhode Island - 1,051,302 (Blue State)
10.) New Hampshire - 1,318,194 (Toss-Up State)
11.) Maine - 1,328,188 (Blue State)
12.) Hawaii - 1,374,810 (Blue State)
13.) Idaho - 1,584,985 (Red State)
14.) Nebraska - 1,842,641 (Red State)
15.) West Virginia - 1,855,364 (Red State)
16.) New Mexico - 2,082,224 (Toss-Up State)
17.) Nevada - 2,723,322 (Toss-Up State)
18.) Utah - 2,817,222 (Red State)
19.) Kansas - 2,871,238 (Red State)
20.) Arkansas - 2,937,979 (Red State)
21.) Mississippi - 2,978,512 (Red State)
22.) Iowa - 3,062,309 (Toss-Up State)
23.) Connecticut - 3,580,709 (Blue State)
24.) Oklahoma - 3,791,508 (Red State)
25.) Oregon - 3,871,859 (Blue State)
... and so forth.
There are several reasons this is an improvement. First off, everyone's sick of Iowa and New Hampshire going first. There's no logical reason for it.
In this alternate model, there is a good enough balance of Red States to Blue States to Toss-Up States. The states that can really put a nail in the coffin of a candidate don't vote until much later in the game.
Consider that if a Mitt Romney wins SC, VA and FL, that constitutes enough delegates and momentum that he'd be almost impossible to overtake. Having any of these three states (4th, 12th and 24th in population) going early leaves a lot of states feeling like they're really not a part of the process.
It wouldn't be a bad thing for Democrats to actually have to put forth effort in places like Wyoming, Alaska and North and South Dakota. It also wouldn't hurt the Republicans to have to do some serious campaigning in the District of Columbia, Vermont, Delaware and Rhode Island.
It also spreads things out across the time zones too. Hawaii and Alaska often feel left out. By the time any Presidential election gets to them, the outcome is usually already known. This would at least put them on the map in some fashion.
I think the primaries should be condensed into geographic regions that rotate every cycle so no group of states can claim too much power in the process and done in a way that alternates geographic regions by party. So say in 2016, the Democrats run primaries in the Midwest group of states the same time the Republicans run their primaries in the Northwest group of states. And so it goes around the country with just a handful of large geographic elections. This gives no importance to any particular state's electorate. If there are, as I hope someday, more political parties, they would choose the same route.
I think the small states loom large in the election cycle because it makes it easier for the candidates to promote their messages while raking in the most bucks to spend. As another discussion, money shouldn't even be involved here. Ideally, elections would be publicly funded, open to all, and standardized across all states.
But, then again, why are the primaries even important? They serve no public purpose. They are to determine the party's candidate, nothing more. I'm amazed at how much we Americans allow the parties to drive politics when it should be the people. Our two political parties are just a doppelganger of corruption anyway. They have learned to extend the presidential election cycle into a near two-year event in an effort to scrape as much money as possible out of us by deliberately dividing us into two camps. All while they control every aspect of the election--including the primaries. They control the fact that there are only two of them because any more division will generate shades of gray to a population encouraged to do little more than black and white thinking. It's all a sham. The conventions are puppet shows paid for by the public dollar. How the hell did that happen that we the people pay so much for these things? Shouldn't the entire expense be saddled by the party? The D and R are not our government, they are two sides of a infected coin that we spend in every election as if it has value.
Sorry to digress. I'm already so sick of the 2012 campaign, I don't even want to see or hear any of these fools until election day when I want to put an X by the box that says "None of the Above".
Bear in mind that this is not my personal endorsement of the two-party stranglehold monopoly on power. It's mostly just one idea of how primaries could be done differently, rather than having Iowa (not a small state) and New Hampshire (small but not all that small) going first every single year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
I think the primaries should be condensed into geographic regions that rotate every cycle so no group of states can claim too much power in the process and done in a way that alternates geographic regions by party. So say in 2016, the Democrats run primaries in the Midwest group of states the same time the Republicans run their primaries in the Northwest group of states. And so it goes around the country with just a handful of large geographic elections. This gives no importance to any particular state's electorate. If there are, as I hope someday, more political parties, they would choose the same route.
Interesting idea.
Quote:
I think the small states loom large in the election cycle because it makes it easier for the candidates to promote their messages while raking in the most bucks to spend. As another discussion, money shouldn't even be involved here. Ideally, elections would be publicly funded, open to all, and standardized across all states.
Only one truly small state currently factors into the early going and that is New Hampshire.
The reason to let the small states go first is pretty simple. If you let large states go early, then the whole thing is decided and many states feel as though they had no voice in choosing the candidate.
With the small states first, you could conceivably lose the first 25 states and still win by doing well in the more populated states. Letting California, Texas, Florida and New York all go first and the race is decided already, with a lot of states feeling left out.
I do think they could make the process move helluva lot quicker.
Quote:
But, then again, why are the primaries even important? They serve no public purpose. They are to determine the party's candidate, nothing more. I'm amazed at how much we Americans allow the parties to drive politics when it should be the people.Our two political parties are just a doppelganger of corruption anyway. They have learned to extend the presidential election cycle into a near two-year event in an effort to scrape as much money as possible out of us by deliberately dividing us into two camps. All while they control every aspect of the election--including the primaries. They control the fact that there are only two of them because any more division will generate shades of gray to a population encouraged to do little more than black and white thinking. It's all a sham. The conventions are puppet shows paid for by the public dollar. How the hell did that happen that we the people pay so much for these things? Shouldn't the entire expense be saddled by the party? The D and R are not our government, they are two sides of a infected coin that we spend in every election as if it has value.
Couldn't agree with you more. America could have saved itself from so many problems if they'd actually taken George Washington's advice and not created political parties. How many stupid messes ave resulted from partisan politics in US history?
Quote:
Sorry to digress. I'm already so sick of the 2012 campaign, I don't even want to see or hear any of these fools until election day when I want to put an X by the box that says "None of the Above".
This is one thing the really intrigues me. In 2008 when the Dems were running that ugly feud between Lord Obama and Hillary Clinton, it seemed that Americans couldn't get enough of it. They loved it!
I wonder why this cycle and the GOP race is less exciting reality TV? It's not like either party is any more intelligent than the other.
Well it seems like a good order to me but......The states and parties decide for themselves now when they have whatever.New Hampshire has a law that they will always schedule a primary earlier then any other state.The parties have penalized several states for schedualing primaries/caucuses earlier then they want,taking away half their delegates.Several states pushed them earlier anyway.Do you want the federal govt taking more power from the states/parties?
It is frustrating that before a lot of the country has a chance to vote in a primary the nomination is already a lock.I don't know the answer.
Well it seems like a good order to me but......The states and parties decide for themselves now when they have whatever.New Hampshire has a law that they will always schedule a primary earlier then any other state.The parties have penalized several states for schedualing primaries/caucuses earlier then they want,taking away half their delegates.Several states pushed them earlier anyway.Do you want the federal govt taking more power from the states/parties?
It is frustrating that before a lot of the country has a chance to vote in a primary the nomination is already a lock.I don't know the answer.
I don't have an elegant solution for implementing it. It's mostly an idea. A doodle.
I suppose one possible solution would be to strip them of ALL delegates if they don't agree to see reason and reschedule things a bit. It's not asking all the much to let somebody else go first for a change. I doubt that NH would be willing to stick to their guns and send zero delegates. New Englanders are stubborn, but not that stubborn. And if they are, America will get by without them for a few election cycles. Think it'll work?
I don't have an elegant solution for implementing it. It's mostly an idea. A doodle.
I suppose one possible solution would be to strip them of ALL delegates if they don't agree to see reason and reschedule things a bit. It's not asking all the much to let somebody else go first for a change. I doubt that NH would be willing to stick to their guns and send zero delegates. New Englanders are stubborn, but not that stubborn. And if they are, America will get by without them for a few election cycles. Think it'll work?
I don't know the answer,but I agree it is a subject we should be discussing.I hate to give the fed govt power over the states or telling the parties how they 'must' choose their candidates.....but I don't like the status quo either
I think it is an improvement, even though it is low population states, DC is in their early and would allow for more focus on urban issues then we currently have in the primary process.
Well it seems like a good order to me but......The states and parties decide for themselves now when they have whatever.New Hampshire has a law that they will always schedule a primary earlier then any other state.The parties have penalized several states for schedualing primaries/caucuses earlier then they want,taking away half their delegates.Several states pushed them earlier anyway.Do you want the federal govt taking more power from the states/parties?
It is frustrating that before a lot of the country has a chance to vote in a primary the nomination is already a lock.I don't know the answer.
I agree with you. I do wish there were regional voting, over a period of a few months, maybe starting in Feb, but we have to convince the stateso of this. I remember when most of the primaries were held on the first Tues in March or the first Tues in June, those days are long gone.
Nita
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
