New Hampshire sets Jan. 23 primary, putting Democrats out of compliance
New Hampshire sets Jan. 23 primary, putting Democrats out of compliance
www.politico.com
New Hampshire sets Jan. 23 primary, putting Dems out of compliance
4 comments
New Hampshire sets Jan. 23 primary, putting Democrats out of compliance
New Hampshire sets Jan. 23 primary, putting Dems out of compliance
I was a Bernie Sanders supporter. But at the same time the ridiculous entitlement from New Hampshire here is strong. The earlier states in the primary calendar end up having a much larger effect on who the nominee is. Why should the same small non representative rural states get to have that important role every single election for a hundred years?
If we aren't going to just do them all at once, I'd prefer small groups of states going on the same day at set intervals (allowing a demographic more representative of the country as a whole), with the exact order rotating each election cycle.
I live in a state where nobody votes in primaries because it’s literally all decided by the time it gets here
Perhaps we should just make the order random to make it as fair as possible. Every state would have an equal chance at being the first, second, third, etc state and it would be different every time.
Have states that are interested in being among the first to hold primaries apply to the national party. The party then has a nonpartisan third party run a random number generator or roll a dice. The first state chosen goes first. Then the next state goes second, etc. Some states might not get picked and thus might go during "Super Tuesday" (or might choose to go then). At least the initial list of states would be random and not chosen by party heads to prefer certain candidates or chosen by states who insist that they always go first because they called it a hundred years ago.