Our primary process is way messed up: The largest Democratic state has no voice.

[Comrade Grumpy]

California gets to vote on June 7.

California has 55 electoral votes and is solidly, undeniably Democratic.

I have no idea which Democratic candidate is ahead in California, but it seems, uh, undemocratic to have a front-loaded primary process in which voters in small, not Democratic-leaning states (Iowa, New Hampshire) or in Southern non-Democratic states (Georgia, South Carolina) have a greater voice than voters in the single largest electoral block in the country, and one you know is going to vote for the Democrat.

Who in the heck designed this system? And can't we do it better and more equitably?

[RandySF]

1. The State of CA did it

Our state and federal office primaries are held in June and they don't want to pay for an additional state election earlier in the year.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. Small states like it that way. It will be decided before we vote.

[zappaman]

3. Yeah, it's kinda ridiculous.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. I've always thought there should be some sort of national primary day.

It does seem stupid to have a few small states have their primaries or caucuses really early, which may give a candidate momentum in a way that doesn't reflect how people in other states would vote. The reason it's happened this way is because the states set their own election laws and procedures. So if you're a small state that wants a lot of influence and attention and advertising money, all you have to do is schedule your primary election or caucus for January. Why every state doesn't just pick the same January date, I don't know.

[brooklynite]

8. A national primary would require immense staffing and advertising...

...which means immense amounts of campaign finance. It would make candidates like Sanders virtually unelectable.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. You have a point. I wish there were a better way

but I don't know what it is.

[Hortensis]

41. You forget we're in the Information Age. Elections now don't

REQUIRE immense amounts of private or public finance, relatively speaking. We could always require publicly licensed airwaves/cable/internet servers grant time to candidates. Via the internet, getting a message to a hundred million need not cost much more than getting it to one.

[CoffeeCat]

5. Let's say we put California first...

If California was first, one could make the case that ONE state has so much influence and say in our nomination process.

The first four states that vote in our Democratic primary (Iowa, NH, South Carolina and NV) collectively have 30 electoral votes.

Wouldn't front loading the primary with a giant state render the contests in those states nearly irrelevant?

Iowa, NH, South Carolina, Nevada are first. That's a pretty diverse cross section of America. It's not all-encompassing or perfect, but those 30 electoral votes contain a very eclectic cross section of our country.

[seabeyond]

7. If California was first, one could make the case that ONE state has so much influence

I agree. Kinda obvious.

[hedda_foil]

20. How about if California voted on Super Tuesday?

[seabeyond]

21. I have never consider this, but I am all for a national vote day, .... And none of it is staggered.

I do not have a real strong position on this, mostly cause it is not going to change any time soon. But, from what I understand, California did it for a reason. Seems absurd to me. I am not arguing what the OP'er is saying, just having it one of the first wouldnt work either.

[CoffeeCat]

24. National voting day would benefit the moneyed candidate...

A national Democratic primary day--where everyone voted at once--would overwhelmingly favor the candidate with the most cash on hand. This would, no doubt, increase the likelihood that a Koch-funded candidate or a candidate funded heavily with corporate millions would have the serious advantage.

A one-day vote would cause the candidates rely on almost exclusively on television advertising to inform voters about their views. Yuck. I need to know more than soundbytes. It would be difficult for candidates, especially those without deep campaign coffers, to criss cross the country and meet voters or give speeches, in ways that would truly make a difference. Candidates may give speeches, but they would most likely favor heavily populated areas. That makes sense, but then a large portion of the country is relying on television ads to know these candidates.

That would definitely hamper the vetting process.

Look at Obama. He was behind in every national poll at the onset of the 2008 primary season. He was also behind in every state poll. As he campaigned in each state, one by one, "We The People" got to hear him speak and even ask him questions. Voters got to know him and he surged in the polls and eventually won the nomination. If there had been a one-day primary--on the day that the first state voted (January 1, 2008)--Obama wouldn't have been our nominee.

Say good-bye to any underdogs winning if we have a one-day primary. The only winners will be the corporations, the millionaires and the billionaires who fund candidates who can buy the most television advertising--while essentially hiding from the American public.

[Live and Learn]

22. California did try that. Jerry Brown moved it back to June to save money. nt

[hedda_foil]

23. I was thinking more along the line of rewriting the California law that's the cause of this.

Dems hold the state legislature, Senate and Governorship by wide margins. They could change the timing of the electoral caucuses to January, say. That would enable them to move the primary election to Super Tuesday, wouldn't it?

[onecaliberal]

13. 4 tiny states should NOT have the influence it currently has.

These states are NOT representative of the country.

[CoffeeCat]

26. Maybe the answer is to have ten states...

...vote within a short time frame (2 weeks?). Those states could represent a broader cross section of voters.

I get what you are saying. I do think the first four states (IA, NH, SC, NV) represent a diverse US population. Certainly not representative of everyone, but it is decent start.

I like the drawn-out, state-by-state process because this system favors underdogs and those candidates who aren't front-loaded with cash from millionaires, billionaires and global corporations.

There's just nothing like retail politics--when you can meet the candidates, challenge them in person with questions and attend their events.

But I do understand what you are saying and maybe it's time to mix up the states that vote initially--or to widen out the number of states that vote first.

The next states to vote on Mar 1 (a month after the first state votes and just a few days after SC) certainly represent a wide swath of the country:

--Arkansas
--Colorado
--Georgia
--Mass
--Minn
--Oklahoma
--Tenn
--TX
--VT
--Virginia

[onecaliberal]

27. In California (The candidate ATM state) the only way you'll get to meet a candidate

Is if you have many thousands to give. Or if you can buy your way into a 3,000 dollar a plate dinner.
I like the idea of opening it up to more states at the beginning. Maybe a few western states. I am certainly not opposed to giving the underdog a better chance. Money in our system has become cancerous to the entire process.
March 1st states are 3/4 red. Again IMO not representative. Maybe it's because I live in California, although, a very red county. Having an equal number of states from either side of the country to start would help perhaps. Money has become the winner every time.

[CoffeeCat]

28. I've met most of the Democratic candidates within the last few

...caucus cycles. I've met a lot of Republicans too (Evan Bahy's sweater had lots of fuzzballs on it--random, I know).

The Obama ground game was definitely the best. I met him a couple of times, and his canvassers were at our door every other day. When I refused to commit to a candidate, Obama called me--to ask me why I wasn't in his camp yet! It was really cool--and very strange! We talked for a good ten minutes, until his phone died. Then he called me back to apologize for this phone dying and we wrapped it up.

This is the kind of stuff that needs to happen if someone is going to be President. They need to be run through the paces, and to really get in front of (and be challenged by "We The People&quot .

This would never happen if we had a one-day primary. The thought of it makes me sad!

[demwing]

43. We don't need a cross section of the country for the primary

we need a cross section of Blue states.

Otherwise, red/purple states will have the first shot at creating or confirming momentum.

i like the idea of a Primary Week, where we can vote in any state at any time during that week. Do all voting at the local Post Office, and vote by mail. Let your Social Security # be your Voter ID, just like it's our taxpayer ID.

If the PO can handle tax returns and passports, they can handle voting.

[brooklynite]

6. Blame the State of California...

...they continually choose to vote in June.

Consider that, if the race was effectively tied, they would have immense influence. And it's not tied, what difference does it make?

[MineralMan]

9. California is a little weird.

There are actually congressional district-level caucuses held on May 1, ahead of the primary election. 317 Delegates are selected at those caucuses, based proportionally on the caucus results. Then, following the June 7 primary, the remaining 158 are selected proportionally, based on the primary election results in each district. In both cases, candidates receiving less than 15% of the vote get no delegates.

Few California Democratic voters participate in those May 1 caucuses, unfortunately. More should. California uses a split system to select pledged delegates to the National convention. All are chosen based on the proportions each candidate receives in either the caucuses or primary election.

For more, visit this link:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CA-D

[restorefreedom]

10. i wish we had rotating super days

so there would be say, 5 voting days, ten states each day. each election the order could shift so no state or group of states always goes first.

[Codeine]

14. The podunk states will never let this happen. nt

[restorefreedom]

16. what would they do?

i guess they could keep racing to see who has the earlier primary, and then we can start the process a year in advance.....

i hate to see two conservstive states basically choose the nom

[ibegurpard]

12. And one of the first key states

Will NEVER go to a Democrat.

[99th_Monkey]

15. I think those states with the highest % of Registered Democrats should be first

which might change from one election cycle to the next.

[restorefreedom]

17. nice idea! another option

base it on the previous election returns. the states thst went highest % for the dem nom go first, etc

[99th_Monkey]

18. Thanks. One side-benefit would be it would provide a powerful incentive to register Dems.

so ones own state might have their primary earlier..

[restorefreedom]

19. quite true. the current system for sure needs improvement. nt

[HereSince1628]

31. imo, the states with highest turnout % of registered voters that turnout should go first

that might help incentivize gotv.

Not quite sure how to measure that in open primary states, but ...

[99th_Monkey]

33. I really think the idea has some merit, as it incentivizes voter turn-out

and gives the most participatory states the first crack at earlier primaries.

I'm sure there are some devils somewhere in the details, or potential problems; come to
think of it, probably one of the first problems is that the states that now have a monopoly
on early primary voting would scream bloody murder.

[HereSince1628]

35. I think they could give it a trial with Iowa and New Hampshire sharing

their first in the nation status. Being in the eastern time zone, they'd always be among first states reporting results.

The small size of both states has advantages...but, imo, so does putting some more significance on gotv

[JI7]

25. California elections are all about media tv ads etc. nothing is stopping

[Comrade Grumpy]

29. How about a series of regional primaries?

With the order alternating each election year.

Northeast
Southeast
Midwest
West

Maybe a month apart?

[brooklynite]

30. Same problem as a national Primary...

...too much territory to allow for retail campaigning, which allows smaller campaigns to build momentum. Gives the edge to the candidate which the largest war-chest and campaign organization.

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. I guess I should agitate for California to vote in February.

But that, too, would present the same problem as a national primary......"too much territory to allow for retail campaigning, which allows smaller campaigns to build momentum. Gives the edge to the candidate which the largest war-chest and campaign organization."

California is 38 million people, solidly Democratic (where I live, Republicans are something you have to find on a scavenger hunt), and the single largest electoral vote bloc in the country. There should be some way to get our voices heard.

[brooklynite]

40. CA will never get retail campaigning...

...but moving up to Super Tuesday would help

[Karma13612]

32. Well, I am the first to admit that I

am not the best informed regarding elections, but I don't understand why primaries and caucuses are spread out.

It makes no sense that the process creates a sense of momentum with the earlier states almost 'leading' the opinion of later states. It's pretty well accepted that some voters (not all, but some) are influenced in their voting by who is already leading from the voters in previous state primaries.

So, if you don't score well right out of the gate, it seems that your fate can be sealed unless the voters in later states think independently and ignore earlier voting.

Makes no sense.

Then again, this is America. We seem intent on being unique, often at the detriment of our own well-being.

[99th_Monkey]

34. The only rationale for spread-out primaries that registers with me is

that it helps keep campaign costs down for dark horse challengers, such as Bernie and O'M,
who wouldn't have the resources early-on to launch a nation-wide primary campaign.

I think it does make some sense to spread the states out, but would rather they be potentially
rotating, depending on which states had the highest voter turnout in the last election cycle.

[LWolf]

36. I am thrilled that CA doesn't vote until June 7th.

To say that CA has "no voice" is ludicrous. CA has the biggest voice. The most delegates. Leaving them until last means that those of us in smaller states, with fewer delegates, get to have a voice.

When my state has a primary in late May, after all the "big" voices are done, it's very often a moot point. It doesn't matter at all whether or not I show up to cast a primary vote, because the nomination is already a done deal. My state has been effectively, if not literally, excluded from the process.

Leaving the biggest voice until after so many smaller voices means that everyone gets to be heard, and that's crucial if there's really going to be a democratic process.

I kind of agree about the early states, since they often determine who stays in the race until the end. It seems like there should be a better mix. I don't mind the early states being small, but I'd like to see someone from the West coast be included, and some more liberal states.

A better balance, so to speak.

Or maybe it's just not right that a few early states get to limit the choices for all the later states. I don't know how to fix that without a single primary day across the nation, and I know that's an issue for campaign time and funding. Maybe that should be okay. Or maybe there's a better solution I haven't thought of.

[Comrade Grumpy]

39. Most of the time, the primaries are a done deal by the time California rolls around.

That effectively means no voice.

[LWolf]

42. Most of the time,

the primaries are a done deal when my state rolls around. California has had an earlier primary for more than 3 decades. In '08, it was in February. In '96, '2000, and '04, it was in March. It hasn't been held in June since 1992. That's 34 years ago.

In 2000, Super Tuesday effectively decided the nomination; Bradley dropped out after that. CA was part of Super Tuesday.

In '04, Super Tuesday again decided the nomination, and again, CA was part of that.

In '96, Brown was still in contention in March.

Bill Clinton did not have enough delegates in '92 to have the nomination locked up until June 2nd...the date of the CA primary.

When was it, exactly, that "most of the time" the primaries were a done deal when CA got a turn?

[tritsofme]

37. As far as I know, there is nothing preventing California from setting a much earlier primary date.

The party does allow states like IA,NH,NV,SC to go earlier, but there I don't believe there are any party rules preventing California from choosing to hold a meaningful primary in early March.

[99Forever]

44. Our primary "system" reeks of being corrupted.

The only "fair" way would be for all states to primary on the same day. However, the establishment cronies will see to it that never happens.

The system isn't broken, it's fixed.