CA wants to move to head of class in primaries. See ya Iowa....Kind of love this.

[jodymarie aimee]

California state lawmakers approved a measure early Saturday that would move the state's presidential primary up several months to the beginning of March, potentially granting California significantly more sway in the nominating process. Kind of love this.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/351011-california-lawmakers-cast-opposition-with-trump-as-a-moral-fight

[TreasonousBastard]

1. It might be fun to see a national primary day-- sort of super super Tuesday...

so the candidates don't descend on individual states en masse just before their individual primaries.

(How many Caribbean islands could we rebuild with the money pissed away on campaigning?)

[brooklynite]

92. So you think our entire campaign should be built on TV ads...

...run by candidates who have enough money to buy them?

The advantage of Iowa and NH is thet they test a candidate's abilty to interact with real voters.

[yardwork]

101. Californians aren't real voters?

California is true blue. I'd love for them to pick our candidates.

[brooklynite]

115. Californians are too numerous for an effective grassroots campaign.

Any voter in NH or iowa has the ability to meet the entire panoply of candidates it they wish to. 39 M Californians do not.

[stopbush]

109. Fuck the real voters in Iowa. They're conservatives, no matter what their party.

I live in CA. It's about time this most-Democratic, most-progressive state have a MAJOR say in who gets the D nomination. I'm am tired of CA having no real say in the process.

[JDC]

2. Not a fan of this idea

It seems to crush the possibility of an outlier candidate's chances. Once CA goes, a smaller name candidate has no further chance <or> at the very least is immediately placed in a deep catch-up mode. It gives a huge advantage to the well funded aka corporate candidate

[TDale313]

4. Sorry, but the millions here deserve a say too.

[JDC]

5. Do you not have a say before your primary now?

[TDale313]

6. By the time we vote, it's already over.

I'm 46. That's been true for every election I can recall. Yes, there are other ways to have an impact, but we deserve for our votes to matter, too.

[marlakay]

88. Just moved to Oregon but most of life in Cali

I hated that it was over by time we voted.

I think the fair thing though would be to all vote same day. Little states wouldn't get the pork they do but the millions in the big states the majority would finally have a say!

[TDale313]

98. National primaries are an interesting idea,

But that really would shut lesser known candidates out. I like the idea of rotating regional primaries. That seems most fair to me.

I don't expect California to always be first or early- that would unfair. I would love to see it, at least occasionally, be in the mix. To not have the primaries be decided before it gets to us every time. And because of the electoral college and the fact that we're deep blue, our votes become pretty superfluous in the general, too.

This, of course, is just talking about the Presidental race. State and local races, we're doing incredible stuff here, and I really like the vast majority of our Congress people. Sen Harris is great, and Sen Feinstein's even been stepping up in a lot of ways. Too bad the red states have so much outsized influence there, too.

[yardwork]

39. So it's ok for California to be last but not ok for Iowa to be last?

There's a clear double standard here.

[dalton99a]

42. +1

[USALiberal]

13. I disagree. I am sick of Iowa and the drama! nt

[exboyfil]

58. I live in Iowa and I agree

Let California go first.

In a sane world there should be a rotating calendar over ten weeks or so where approximately 20% of the population vote each two weeks. The regions could be grouped.

[USALiberal]

69. Great idea! n/t

[mcar]

72. That is an excellent idea!

[chimpymustgo]

75. What about primaries scheduled by % of Dem votes. REWARD our voters. nt

[exboyfil]

77. That too but part of the effort

should be outreach for other voters as well. The President is president of the entire country. I just want to get away from Iowa and New Hampshire. I don't like the process, and I don't like what the caucus does to my state. I wish like anything that I caucused for Clinton (not Sanders) in the primary - if I knew what was going to happen I would have. I did all I could to encourage others to vote for Clinton in the general election, and I think she would have been a good President.

[yardwork]

100. +1000. Caucuses are undemocratic.

[SharonClark]

85. I'm from Iowa and I agree.

The repugs dominate the caucuses with 10-20 candidates and spend 2 years bashing Dems more than each other. The media spends 2 years repeating the anti-Dem/pro-repug lies. It has served the repugs well but not the Dems.

[USALiberal]

116. Thanks for the info!! n/t

[sharedvalues]

14. Yes but progressive California leans against some corp candidates

It's a double edged sword - a big state early gives an advantage to frontrunners. But having California early gives an advantage to progressives.

Personally I'm fed up with Iowa - a state with a racist white supremacist rep (King) - having so much control over who is nominated.

[JDC]

18. I agree with that.

[smirkymonkey]

32. Iowa is such a nothing state. It's about time for a change.

This country needs to look toward the future or it will crumble by clinging to the past.

[exboyfil]

59. Please don't call us a nothing state

I agree that we should not have Iowa and New Hampshire go first. I would like to see a ten week primary season where 20% of the population every two weeks. This schedule should be rotated by election.

[smirkymonkey]

68. Sorry, I didn't mean that.

I just meant that it is not really representative of the changing face of the country and population-wise is not as significant as California or New York. I'm sure it is a lovely state in many other ways.

[SharonClark]

86. Then that is what you should have said in the first place.

[lunasun]

34. Also to say it represents what America is thinking is bullshit . I am less than 5 hours away from

Iowa in a liberal city . They do not represent what many Americans want. Plus it's like 95%white and rural
The country has many POC and large metropolitan areas
But the media loves to focus on the Iowa primary results as speaking for America
California is also very large and will help with both the repub and dem selection .

[yardwork]

40. Not just Iowa. New Hampshire is also white, rural, conservative.

I've never understood why those two states have such an outsize say in who Democrats choose as our candidate.

[teamster633]

50. "white, rural, conservative"

and libertarian-leaning to the extent that the Free State Project chose us as their test-bed. I've essentially lived in NH all my life and the idea that this state should have any say at all in the selection of the Democratic candidate for president is ridiculous.

[emulatorloo]

78. Iowa Dem caucus goers gave Obama a huge head start. They hate Steve King as much as you do.

I am excited for CA to go first but I don't like hearing the progressive and left-liberal Dems in IA being misrepresented that way. You described Republican IA caucus goers, not Iowa's democrats.

[cstanleytech]

22. If we want to win more then this might be our best option to do that as right now the Repugnants

have the advantage by making us dance to their tune in Iowa but by making them dance to ours in California it puts them on the defensive as they will not have a home state advantage.

[yardwork]

30. What if the "smaller name" wins the California primary?

I don't see why the Democrats should begin their primaries in two small, conservative states. Why not California?

[mythology]

37. How does a lesser known candidate get the money

To compete in California with such expensive media markets and higher in general costs?

[yardwork]

38. Is it less expensive in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Our campaigns appear to be run on social media and data mining now anyway.

[JI7]

79. Yes lot less expensive and being a small state allows candidates to reach all voters

Without needing much money.

[emulatorloo]

80. Yes. The state is small enough that it is cheaper for unknowns to campaign in.

Social media still isn't everything. Face to face @ union halls, VFWs, town halls still count for a lot. Seeing the candidates up close and personal.

I hope CA does go first this time.

[grantcart]

63. Actually the inverse is true. Media markets in Iowa are cheap and easily bought while media markets

in California are so expensive that they would cost tens of millions and have little effect. For that reason CA has developed a strong tradition of candidate forums and debates that significantly reduce any financial advantages a candidate may have.

Don't believe me? Ask Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, Michael Huffington, Steve Westly, Al Cheechi who spent a combined $ 200 million and got nothing for it.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/

Iowa Republicans are among the most religiously aggressively nut jobs in the country

They bear a large responsibility for Trump, had he failed in Iowa he probably would not have gotten the nomination.

Oh and by the way, the well funded candidate, ala Trump won in Iowa because of his ability to swamp the others in the media.

Media in California is so expensive that no one will have the money to make large ad buys and free media has a much greater role than ads. Candidate forums and debates are a fixture in California because it is so expensive and provides a much more even playing field than a state like Iowa. Ten million in ad buys in Iowa will get you the nomination while the same investment in California won't move the numbers more than one or two points where free media forums and debates will launch or destroy a candidate.

[stopbush]

113. Bingo!

[itsrobert]

76. Tired of candidates bending over backwards for Iowa votes

No more giveaways, time to address real problems where people actually live.

[TeamPooka]

90. The fallacy here is that that CA would never go for an "outlier" candidate.

[stopbush]

112. Yeah, because with the process we currently have

the outlier candidate always wins the nomination?

Let's be clear: if CA had gone first in 2016, Hillary would have wrapped things up by early April, Sanders wouldn't have made it past March, and the Party would have been united behind Hillary by April. Sanders would not be around to hold back his support, to try to extract concessions in the platform that didn't help get anyone elected, to threaten a brokered convention, etc.

And as long as CA is moving up their primary, I have a suggestion for the D National Party: no one gets to run for the D presidential nomination unless they have declared themselves as a D and been a card-carrying D for the five consecutive years leading up to the day they declare to seek the nomination. No exceptions. None.

[TDale313]

3. About friggin' time.

It's ridiculous for us here in California to have essentially no say in our primaries and be basically irrelevant in the General. Next step- get rid of the electoral college, or at least raise the number of Representatives in the House, which has been capped at the same number since 1910.

[greymattermom]

8. Or a minimum population to have a representative

maybe Montana and Wyoming could share one.

[sharedvalues]

15. After DC gets two senators (more people than Wyoming)

[lunasun]

36. Yes another issue!

[JustAnotherGen]

9. In NJ

We are near the very end too. Thing is - due to our physical size - it's very easy to run a primary campaign here, with a lot of people - we are dense. And - extremely diverse.

I'm loving the idea of an extremely diverse state jumping ahead. Kudos to CA.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Be careful, Iowa gave us Obama

He and his candidacy could have been crushed with an early California-only contest in 2008 (he lost to Clinton there on Super Tuesday by 8 points, but he fought her to a draw for the day with gains elsewhere). California is massive; far too big for any insurgent candidate or lesser known challengers to cover. If we want to tilt the contest even more in favor of big money establishment-favored candidates who just might not be the best choice, by all means elevate California.

[sharedvalues]

19. I LOVE Obama

But one could argue his lack of political experience hurt him. Maybe he would have been better off as a senator for another term or two or governor before running for president.


Recently on Pod Save America some ex Obama staffers were discussing their naivete. They said when negotiating a debt ceiling increase, Obama started his offer with tax cuts to give the GOP cover. But in retrospect they realized the GOP wasn't negotiating in good faith. That is shocking naivete on Obama's part. He should have known from day 1 not to trust the GOP. Maybe if he had a little more experience he would have done things differently. (On the other hand maybe this is just Obamas personality and he was the wrong leader for a time with an autocratic GOP).

[flibbitygiblets]

21. agreed 109%

The extra is because I was afraid to say it first. Also because the 9 is next to the 0.

[tymorial]

26. I love Obama too but I too felt he was too green in 08

It is the main reason why I supported Clinton in the primary. If we are being honest, his nomination was suprising. At the time he was a junior senator with very little political experience.

This is meant as no disrespect.

[BeyondGeography]

33. He won twice

Much to be said for that. His opponent would have won in 2008 but IMO Clinton fatigue would have set in quickly and she would have been one and done and defeated rather handily in 2012, although maybe not as bad as last year's 74 EV disaster. I think Dem primary voters chose wisely in 2008, starting with Iowa.

[yardwork]

31. Hillary Clinton would have been an excellent president. Do you disagree?

[DonCoquixote]

52. 2016 yes

2008 Hillary kept letting people blow dog whistles. I still wonder why she did that, as she did know better.

[yardwork]

54. Democrats who repeat Republican talking points should be shamed.

[DonCoquixote]

55. what republican point

she is the one who said "he's not a Muslim as far as I know.." She realized that the people who ran her campaign in 2008 did not do right by her, and thankfully, she purged most of them out in 2016.

[yardwork]

57. Just a general observation. I feel that attacking Democrats harms the country.

[DonCoquixote]

62. well I voted for her in 2016

because she stopped being 2008. That helped democrats. I would rather have a person that can make corrections and steer away form the rocks than some idol.

[n2doc]

10. I would like the order of primaries set by how inclusive the state's voting rights are

So a place that has day-of registration, long early voting periods, etc. would get a boost over states with regressive and racist voting policies (like Texas and Wisconsin).

The other thing that would be good, to me, would be for there to be a rotation on primary order. So different states would get to be early every 4 years, maybe organized by region so one area doesn't get to dominate.

Of course none of these has a chance in hell of happening.

[Doremus]

27. These are excellent ideas and should be implemented. nt

[yardwork]

45. States that deliver Democratic votes in the GE should have more say in the primaries.

As posted downthread, California consistently votes for the Democratic candidate for president. They deserve to have a much bigger influence in who we choose as our nominee than states that consistently vote for the Republican.

Reward strongly Democratic states like California and New York. We will see more enthusiasm and greater turnout among Democrats.

You want your state to have a big say in who gets nominated? Deliver Democratic votes in the national elections. Elect Democratic governors and state legislatures.

[Jim Lane]

49. They get more delegates to the convention.

Both major parties award bonus delegates to states that the party carried in the previous presidential election.

In addition, in the Democratic Party, governors and members of Congress are superdelegates, with automatic votes. That boosts the representation of pro-Democratic areas.

Most of the superdelegates are the DNC members, party hacks whose selection is so arcane that it bears only the faintest resemblance to the popular will. That should be abolished. I'm more sympathetic to retaining superdelegate status for people who've won public elections, as opposed to the little-known and undemocratic intraparty contests.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. IA gave their measly six Electoral College Votes to Chump

CA has given their 55 Electoral College votes to the Democrat the last seven elections in a row. Make CA first and let IA complain.


And heterogeneous CA looks a lot more like America than homogeneous IA



P.S. CA has a Democratic governor, a Democratic legislature, two Democratic senators, and a Democratic Congressional delegation. IA ????????

[oasis]

29. Iowans vote for nutcases like Rep. Steve King.

The sensible days of Sen. Tom Harkin are long gone.

[mythology]

71. Exactly how much cross over do you think there is

Between Steve King voters and Democratic primary voters?

54% of the 2008 Democratic caucus goers were liberal compared to 19% of Iowa as a whole. Primary/caucus voters are more liberal or conservative than the population as a whole.

[emulatorloo]

81. IOWA DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS GOERS DID NOT VOTE FOR STEVE KING

nor did they vote for Joni Ernst. Dems who go to caucuses are progressives and liberals. I don't know why you want to pretend they are Steve King supporters.

[yardwork]

41. Very good point! The states who support Democrats in the GE should lead the primaries.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. If IA is going to hold us hostage they can take their 6 Trump E C Votes and shove em.

[DonCoquixote]

53. hell yes from Florida

aka the state everybody wants, but that everybody uses these small states to discount. I would love California and Florida to move to the first spot, not like the candidates will ignore them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. CA and FL look a lot more like America than IA

[emulatorloo]

83. dunno why you confuse IA Democratic caucus voters with IA Republican caucus goers.

Democratic caucus goers are liberals/progressives. Republican caucus goers are extremly conservative and many of them are evangelicals.

In 08 the Dems gave us Obama. John Edwards was 2nd (remember 'two Americas'?)

As to the electoral college votes, for the great majority of Presidential elections the state has gone Blue.

Trump 2016 win was an outlier. It's complicated why but it was unusual.

At any rate I would like to see some others states go first. Ought to have a rotating schedule.

I also want caucuses to go away forever.

[yardwork]

99. I'm not confusing the Democrats and Republicans. Maybe you were responding to someone else?

All I'm saying is that states that consistently and reliably vote for the Democrat in the GE deserve to have their primaries matter more - in terms of setting momentum by being early in the season - than states that can't manage to get out the vote for Democrats in the GE.

For instance, if the Democrats in my state knew that winning the state for the Democratic candidate in the GE would be rewarded by the party, there would be more enthusiasm for getting out the vote. People like sporting events. The Democrats need to find ways to increase enthusiasm for getting out the vote. This could help.

As long as we're stuck with the Electoral College, it's state by state. The party could reward loyal states more.

I agree with you about caucuses. Get rid of them.

[emulatorloo]

105. Yeah, I think I was replying to someone else. But I will say the idea of "real" states is a

slippery slope. I remember some DU'ers during the primary claiming that "Confederate States" should not count, which I found really egregious. All democrats count.

As to Iowa, it has consistently gone blue in recent presidential elections. There have been two outliers - in recent history: Bush in 2004 and Trump in 2016. In 88, 92, 96, 00, 08, and 12 the Democratic candidate won Iowa

[yardwork]

107. I've never said anything about "real" states. All states matter.

[emulatorloo]

111. Oh I didn't mean you said that.

I don't recall you saying that ever. I guess the notion of "loyal states" reminded me of the bad old times of GD : Primary lol

At any rate I knocked doors for HRC in IA. There was a great field organizer in our county and a lot of terrific volunteers. Our county did go blue. In general the blue areas are able to outvote the red areas for President in Iowa. Just didn't work out this time.

[crazycatlady]

95. Yes and no

The Democrats have their primary on the same day as the GOP (in most cases). It costs the state money to hold a primary.

So would you propose each party have a different day?

[cally]

12. about time a blue state had some say!

Maybe Republican Presidential candidates will think twice about proposed bills to take tax deductions from blue states and health benefits.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. DNC hated when we in Florida did that in 2008.

Even threatened to strip our delegates as if us ordinary voters had any say so in the decision whatsoever.

[stopbush]

114. The DNC will do whatever CA tells them to do.

We are the war chest for the D Party, in votes and in campaign cash. The DNC cannot risk getting on the wrong side of CA power and money brokers.

Sorry, but CA has played nice for too long. Time to lead.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

119. Well Howard Dean had no problem threatening my primary vote in 2008.

And it's not like Florida is a nobody of states. We have a lot of Democrats and a lot of cash here as well.

[jalan48]

17. Oregon is considering moving its primary up as well.

Great to see the progressive West Coast leading the charge.

[flibbitygiblets]

23. woot woot! My home state and my adopted one

Representin!!!

[jalan48]

24. Yep-except for the current forest fires it's the best!

[flibbitygiblets]

25. Rain starts later today!

And lasts all week... thank you baby Jeebus.

[marlakay]

91. I just moved to Oregon

Been doing rain dance all week!

[flibbitygiblets]

110. Welcome to Oregon, Marlakay!

And thanks for the dancing...apparently we needed it!

[marlakay]

120. Your welcome

I do Nia dance. Its all over but head office Portland.

[padfun]

20. And have to Provide Tax Forms to run in California

means that if a Donald Trump didn't want to show his tax forms, then in the Republican primary, they would lose out on all of those votes and that would turn many tides.

[yardwork]

43. It should be a requirement to run in primaries. All candidates must release 5 years of tax returns.

This rule would have prevented the Trump presidency.

[exboyfil]

64. Are you sure the Supreme Court will see it that way

Presidential primaries are weird beasts. In theory they should be under the control of the political parties, but in practice they are a hybrid of varying state participation.

[yardwork]

67. Obviously. It's not hard to guess why some here don't like the suggestion though.

[Not Ruth]

28. Personally, I would just move my state to January, exciting though

[comradebillyboy]

35. California should move up it's primary.

California should definitely be a bigger factor than Iowa or New Hampshire. Their insular, rural, non-diverse populations aren't very representative of the nation as a whole.

[DK504]

44. Not real excited about this idea.

All I ever hear about California is how liberal and nutty crunchy the state is. Most people have no clue about the type of people that actually live there.

Getting the Ca. primary before everyone else could hurt the democrats beyond belief, the reaction to California will be for all red states to vote the exact opposite of them. No one will have a chance after that and we need to keep that door open to all democrats so we can get control of the government back from these ignorant hateful children.

[yardwork]

47. We're talking about the primaries, i.e., who the party chooses as our nominee.

If little red states want to pout and vote against a candidate who won California, they can do that. They don't have many delegates to give, one way or the other.

Personally, living here in purple North Carolina, I doubt many stalwart Democratic voters would be biased against a candidate just because they won California. The reliable Democratic voters here in the south are African American women. They'd probably be delighted to vote for whomever California chose.

The people who are biased against California vote Republican in the general election.

[dlk]

48. Given the Population Differential Between CA and IA, This Makes Good Sense

[JCMach1]

56. Rotate ALL states

That would be nice thanks.

[Itchinjim]

60. As an Iowan who has to put up with endless campaign commercials every four years,

I'm all for this. Let some other state suffer the misery of pandering candidates. Trust me, be careful what you wish for.
BTW, Iowa is a purple state, everything east of Cedar Rapids and Iowa City is essentially Illinois, and everything west of that, with the exception of Des Moines, is Steve King country.

[exboyfil]

66. Blackhawk is purple too

Just maybe not right now (for the life of me I don't understand it).

[Itchinjim]

93. I forgot about Waterloo. Good union town, and UNI in Cedar Falls.

[Bettie]

94. Oh, and the phone calls

the endless polling calls. And robocalls. So many robocalls.

Though, one year, I somehow got on a Michelle Bachmann phone list...boy did I have fun with the people who called to ask me questions about that whack job.

However, Iowa is a small enough state for even a relatively unknown candidate to get a message out. In CA, only those with a huge amount of cash on hand can make an effective run.

I get that a lot of people hate the "low population mostly white states" and those who live here, but we're human beings too and, at least in Iowa, about half of us are liberals.

[Jim Lane]

61. The bill would not put California before Iowa.

First, I think you mixed up the links, because the one in your OP doesn't mention the primary. Try this one: http://ktla.com/2017/09/16/california-legislature-approves-bill-moving-california-primaries-up-to-march-for-2020-presidential-election/

As to the specifics, the bill would move the primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. It's an important distinction because it means that the change would not violate Democratic Party rules.

The current rule is designed to be fair to candidates who start out with less funding and name recognition. In a single national primary, they would have no chance. Instead, the calendar starts with four comparatively small and inexpensive states, one in each of the major regions of the country: Midwest (Iowa), East (New Hampshire), West (Nevada), and South (South Carolina). No other state is permitted to vote before March 1.

The California bill reflects the general perception that states voting earlier have more influence. With California moving up, other states voting after March might decide that now they're the ones who are too late to be meaningful. There could be a significant increase in the front-loading of the primary season.

[exboyfil]

65. Which means it might have the pernicious effect

of making those named states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina) even more important. Candidates will spend even more time in them to roll up momentum for the early knock out.

Living in Iowa I would not be in favor of it. Please rotate our state out at least three out of four times.

[Jim Lane]

73. Where do you think most Iowans are on this question?

I think starting with a few small states is a good idea. The inequity comes in always starting with the same small states.

Rotation, as you suggest, would be an improvement. I had the impression, though, that Iowa would fight like hell to retain its initial position. It might move its caucuses back before January 1 if necessary. (I think that New Hampshire, determined to hold the first primary, has empowered its Secretary of State to move the primary to as early a date as necessary, even if it comes in the preceding year.)

We're in an unfortunate situation where Iowa and New Hampshire probably can and will block any change.

The major parties' only leverage is to refuse to seat delegates. If the DNC and RNC agreed on a schedule of rotation, wouldn't Iowa defy them and go first anyway, daring them to play hardball?

[exboyfil]

74. The parties should control the process

I agree with the proposition of refusing to seat delegates that don't abide by the party calendar. Unfortunately a beauty contest without delegates at stake might still have the same impact.

[Jim Lane]

104. The lesson of 2008 is not encouraging.

Florida and Michigan moved up to impermissibly early dates. As you say, the results still had impact even as beauty contests. Beyond that, the party faced a lot of hostility over depriving two states of representation. The DNC restored the delegates with half votes, then the convention dropped the other shoe and restored them with full votes.

[Not Ruth]

87. NH and IA could move their primaries to January 2019?

Amazing

[Jim Lane]

102. No, I meant they might try December 2019.

Especially New Hampshire. I think state law requires that it be the first primary in the nation, and that New Hampshire leaders have in the past expressed willingness -- indeed, determination -- to move back to the previous calendar year if that was what it took to be first.

[Not Ruth]

118. Why not January 2019?

[Fiendish Thingy]

70. If California's primary moves to early March, NH and IA are still first

So it still gives two small states outsized media attention, and narrative weight to whoever wins/loses/"comes back"

California might still come after Super Tuesday, or Junior Tuesday, or whatever the clusters of primaries in February 2020 are called by the Horserace media by then. A March primary might provide some balance, rather than have CA serve as confirmation of conventional wisdom narrative just before the convention.

I believe CA's primary has been earlier than June sometime in the post-Reagan era, so this isn't the first experiment with changing the date.

[Weekend Warrior]

82. The system must change.

It is a part of the systemic racism as it stands.

[yardwork]

103. I'm sorry, I don't understand anything you're saying.

The selection process IS majority rule. The candidate with the most delegates is the nominee. Any other approach would be highly undemocratic.

Many of us are pointing out that California - and many other states - have populations that look a lot more like the rest of the country than IA and NH. Nothing against IA and NH, but their demographics are much more homogenous than the rest of the country.

[sarisataka]

96. The most democratic way

Would be a two-part primary system. One vote with an open pool followed by a second that would include only the top four to five vote-getters in the initial vote. All states vote on the same day.

Such a system would not place any state above any other and it would still allow outside popular candidates to advance

[Persondem]

97. The parties need take some measure of control. They should rotate which states go first ...

... They could rotate by geographical region perhaps. The West, then Midwest, then SE, then NE etc. and the next national election year the order rotates. The group of states that goes last goes first the next election.

[nocalflea]

106. Talk is cheap.

This has been proposed by our legislature since I can remember. Year after year after year after year after year after year ...

[beachbum bob]

117. put top 5 or 6 electoral states up first and see how it plays

Ca, NY, Tx, Pa, Il, Ohio, Florida.....makes Iowa, NH, etc obsolete as they should be in selecting candidates