Iowa & NH - The brilliant folk who brought you John Kerry

[Truth_and_Power]

Iowa and New Hampshire are not leaders among states. They do not blaze the way on any issue that I am aware of, but for some reason we leave deciding the front runners up to these states. So instead of campaigning throughout the whole nation to all of the people of the united states, the candidates concentrate the great majority of their efforts on these two states. Why are the people of these states appointed to lead us all? What have they done to deserve this right?

Is there any valid argument against a rotation of voting order? The founders made sure that D.C. was not a state so that no state would be in a position of dictating to the others. Letting these states annoint the two front runners and discard the other candidates is doing exactly that. In our general elections it is considered wrong to announce a victor too early because you could influence voters to give up or cast their votes differently. The aura of a winner is a strong thing. Why, then, are the same two states allowed to give this advantage to the candidate(s) of their choice? Barring a rotation of the voting order, they should just do all the states' primaries on the same day.

[PatrickHenry]

The entire political establishment is a scam and you want to tinker with the doorknob?

[Truth_and_Power]

The entire political establishment is a scam and you want to tinker with the doorknob?


Better to bust open the gate than pound on the wall to no avail.

[ECW]

A better way to do this is to have regional primaries. Split the country into eight or ten sections and draw the voting order by lottery or by highest voting percentage in the last national election. Place the primaries two weeks apart starting in March. That way all the voting is done in June with the conventions to be held in August leaving two or three months for the campaign itself. In the year before the national election, hold another lottery or refigure the rankings based on voting percentages and start all over again.

That way Iowa and NH don't carry a disproportionate weight anymore.

[Truth_and_Power]

A better way to do this is to have regional primaries. Split the country into eight or ten sections and draw the voting order by lottery or by highest voting percentage in the last national election. Place the primaries two weeks apart starting in March. That way all the voting is done in June with the conventions to be held in August leaving two or three months for the campaign itself. In the year before the national election, hold another lottery or refigure the rankings based on voting percentages and start all over again.

That way Iowa and NH don't carry a disproportionate weight anymore.


Anything reasonably fair like this would work for me. What I don't want is candidates chosen by a bunch of politically entitled corn farmers.