Why don't the closest states have primaries first?

[pppolitics]

Why don't the closest states have primaries first?

It makes no sense to have primaries first in Iowa, South Carolina, etc. when those states aren't even competitive in the presidential election.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

It makes no sense to have primaries first in Iowa, South Carolina, etc. when those states aren't even competitive in the presidential election.

Iowa and New Hampshire apparently aren't close states.

[Mr. Smith]

That would be so regionalist though, since 3/5 of the deciding states have been from one region.

For example: 2000 would've been very Western, 2008 would've been very Midwestern, 2016 would've been very Southern, but 2004 and 2012 [as if the connections aren't weird enough] would be balanced.

2020 would be Midwestern...

[atheist4thecause]

I think there should be changes as well, but it could be much worse than starting with Iowa.  Iowans do a great job considering information on a well-informed basis and are some of the least partisan voters out there.

Btw, Iowa is a state that is heavily up-for-grabs. New Hampshire can be had by both sides as well. Iowa represents the Midwest while New Hampshire represent the Northeast.

South Carolina is in there in my view to get a feeling for Black voters. There are a lot of Black voters in South Carolina, and it's also a state that represents the South. IIRC, the Democratic Party only protects Iowa and New Hampshire as one and two. After that, other states can move their primaries up. In fact, California did this year. There can be a benefit to being at the back end, too, but it's often better being earlier.

If I was to design a system, I'd have Florida as one of the first states. IMO, Florida is the most important state. There are many elections that it can single-handedly swing because it has so many electoral votes, and it's always close.

[MarkD]

The states that ought to go first are the smallest states, smallest in population and in EC votes. The states with just three or four electoral college votes should be the states that hold primaries or caucuses during the first month of primary season -- preferably in April. Then all the medium-sized states, with five to eleven electoral college votes, should be holding primaries or caucuses in May. Then make the largest states, with twelve or more electoral college votes, wait until June. The idea behind letting the smallest states go first is that those are the states where "retail politics" will still matter, candidates holding town hall meetings and talking to voters one-on-one, not candidates spending the most money.