2020 Primaries, CA moved forward

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/23/2020-elections-democratic-primaries-california-new-hampshire-1073438

California’s March 3 date doesn’t infringe on the New Hampshire statute requiring that it hold its presidential primary seven days before any other state’s primary. But the prospect of a massive early vote from California — absentee and early voting begin 29 days prior to primary election day — could be interpreted by Gardner as a violation of the spirit of New Hampshire’s law.

Gardner’s deliberations are being closely watched in Iowa, another state that zealously guards its special status. If Gardner were to move up his state’s primary date, it would remake the early-state calendar since Iowa requires its caucuses — currently set for Feb. 3, 2020 — to take place eight days ahead of New Hampshire.

The uncertainty lies with the candidates and whether they will shift their time and resources to California and away from Iowa and New Hampshire, said Norm Sterzenbach, a former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party who oversaw the 2008 Iowa caucuses and subsequent coordinated campaigns.

The Californication of the nation continues. More attention is going to be paid to CA politics and the agenda of this state. Good luck to the rest of the country.

[RonZeplin]

Why does NH have to be first? They've done a lousy job so far.

Maybe this Gardner character should move to CA if he wants to vote first.

[Zippyjuan]

Everybody wants to be first. Someday maybe the first primary will be the day of the previous election.

States were worried about being ignored so first they united into "Super Tuesday" blocks.

[James_Madison_Lives]

This will have the impact of the candidates coming into it with the most money even more advantage than they have now. No Ron Pauls or Bernie Sanders could attract money and exposure by winning small early primaries. They'd be knocked out after a few weeks.

[RonZeplin]

This will have the impact of the candidates coming into it with the most money even more advantage than they have now. No Ron Pauls or Bernie Sanders could attract money and exposure by winning small early primaries. They'd be knocked out after a few weeks.

Candidates who come in 2nd & 3rd etc will be able to attract support for other primaries. It's not necessarily winner take all.

[Swordsmyth]

Candidates who come in 2nd & 3rd etc will be able to attract support for other primaries. It's not necessarily winner take all.
But even that will be hard to do for candidates that might have won in smaller states.

Primaries should take place in the smallest states first and end with the largest states.

[Pauls' Revere]

What if they had an even distribution of points? Like equal number of senators?

[Swordsmyth]

What if they had an even distribution of points? Like equal number of senators?
I suppose a party could have any rules it wanted but that would be grossly unfair to the voters in large high population states.

A compromise like the Electoral College that combines equal regional representation with equal per capita representation determined by the number of registered party members as opposed to state population seems best to me.

[Pauls' Revere]

I suppose a party could have any rules it wanted but that would be grossly unfair to the voters in large high population states.

A compromise like the Electoral College that combines equal regional representation with equal per capita representation determined the number of registered party members as opposed to state population seems best to me.


Seems good, but what does equal regional representation look like in this case?

[TheTexan]

New Hampshire statute requiring that it hold its presidential primary seven days before any other state’s primary.

What happens if two states both have that same statute? Do they both compete to see who can vote first?

I'm giddy with excitement at the thought of it.

[Swordsmyth]

Seems good, but what does equal regional representation look like in this case?
Probably the same as the ratio between the Senate and the house divided by the number of states, if there are twice as many delegates as members of Congress there would be four per state as the regional element of their delegate compliments for instance.

[oyarde]

California does not even need primaries. They should just put everyone on the ballot and anyone getting 33 percent or higher share the office and salary with no benefits .

[Pauls' Revere]

What happens if two states both have that same statute? Do they both compete to see who can vote first?

I'm giddy with excitement at the thought of it.

LOL yeah and keep going backwards to go forwards, "Back to the Future". :) LOL