Would it be better for the Dems if they moved primaries around?

[HardWorkingDem]

What are ideas on this? Would it make better sense for Dems to move primaries around from time to time to engage more and more people?

Why should Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence? How about a Superbowl type of method?

[cliffordu]

1. maybe just a lottery at the end of every election cycle.

[Diane R]

2. Yes. This should be the last time Iowa and N.H. got to go first.

[Ellipsis]

3. They're gonna... next election cycle

Dean mentioned it in an interview not that long ago.

[TahitiNut]

4. I'll opt for the state with the highest unemployment.

Let the candidates face the problems they create! Let them SPEND in the state that needs it and HIRE workers where jobs are scarce. The other state should be the one they did first the LAST time ... and explain why they FAILED.

[casus belli]

5. I'm not opposed to tweaking but the basic premise is solid.

Iowa and New Hampshire and some of the other states that have the privilege of early primaries have that privilege because it is possible for a candidate who is lesser known, and has less financial support to introduce him/herself to voters irrespective of how much money they have backing them.

If all of the primaries/caucuses were held on the same day, the smaller states would not only lose some of their influence to the larger states with more delegates, but the candidates who don't benefit from huge financial backing wouldn't have the opportunity to compete.

Our system is good, and it's fair. Now, having said that, I think a better thing to do would be to rotate some of the smaller states to the front of the calendar, or create some sort of a lottery. But, I do think it's important to give all the candidates and opportunity to compete for voters on a fair and level playing field, that doesn't give unfair advantages to candidates who can raise a lot of money and who have high public profiles. Big states will still decide the race. Having some smaller states at the front of the calendar just makes it more possible for all candidates to have an equal chance.

edit: spellcheck

[charlie]

6. Iowa and New Hampshire

have their privileged positions because of the idiotic notion that "tradition" entitles them to lead the pack. Arguments for a staggered primary schedule are sound, but there's no good reason those two should enjoy first place forever.

[casus belli]

7. I completely agree with you.

I just want to avoid people pushing for a single primary date. It has been brought up before, but I think it would be a terrible idea. A lottery would probably be the best way to handle the pecking order, with some weight given to size of the state to avoid a state like, say, California starting off the primary contest and pushing the candidates with less financial support out of the picture. Guys like Kucinich would never have a chance to bring their ideas to the table if they didn't keep some aspects of the current primary contest intact.

[charlie]

8. Lottery

or maybe automatic reduced delegates for primaries before a certain date. Not a penalty, just non-negotiable rules of the game, so states can weigh their own decisions and then OWN THEM, without recourse to blame.

The business of IA and NH has to be settled soon, though. It was Michigan's longterm dyspepsia over their coddling that got us into this mess.

[Ian David]

9. My idea here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6198833&mesg_id=6198833

[VotesForWomen]

10. one day national primary. the current system is a joke.

[undeterred]

11. Exactly.