Should Nevada and South Carolina be the First Two States?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:43:44 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Should Nevada and South Carolina be the First Two States?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Should Nevada and South Carolina (in that order) be the first two states in the Democratic primary calendar?
#1
Democrat: Yes
 
#2
Democrat: No
 
#3
Not a Democrat
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 79

Author Topic: Should Nevada and South Carolina be the First Two States?  (Read 477375 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,625
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2020, 02:39:38 AM »

I would be fine with Iowa getting bumped after Nevada and South Carolina given their massive clusterf**k caucus this year.

If we're keeping roughly the current system intact, it's probably the path of least resistance and easiest change to make to bump Iowa, ban caucuses, and make the list New Hampshire/Nevada (a primary)/South Carolina/New state. I've heard good arguments for Illinois as the new state for #4...a big state, yes, but a big state going fourth isn't the same as it going first. Another possibility might include Michigan. A big northern state in the Midwest.

EDIT: another advantage of this might be that it'd be a good calendar for the GOP as well, and the two parties like to keep their two calendars more or less harmonious. NH/NV/SC/IL works fine as a first four for the GOP and they no longer have to worry about the Iowa caucus giving a huge bump to random religious charlatans.

Illinois is definitely too big and New Hampshire proved to be totally irrelevant this year for the Democrats. If they want a Northeastern state then Connecticut and Delaware are far more diverse and representative of their coalition.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2020, 10:40:43 AM »

I would be fine with Iowa getting bumped after Nevada and South Carolina given their massive clusterf**k caucus this year.

If we're keeping roughly the current system intact, it's probably the path of least resistance and easiest change to make to bump Iowa, ban caucuses, and make the list New Hampshire/Nevada (a primary)/South Carolina/New state. I've heard good arguments for Illinois as the new state for #4...a big state, yes, but a big state going fourth isn't the same as it going first. Another possibility might include Michigan. A big northern state in the Midwest.

EDIT: another advantage of this might be that it'd be a good calendar for the GOP as well, and the two parties like to keep their two calendars more or less harmonious. NH/NV/SC/IL works fine as a first four for the GOP and they no longer have to worry about the Iowa caucus giving a huge bump to random religious charlatans.

Illinois is definitely too big and New Hampshire proved to be totally irrelevant this year for the Democrats. If they want a Northeastern state then Connecticut and Delaware are far more diverse and representative of their coalition.


I don't like that New Hampshire is early, but A. the GOP isn't losing NH, and B. NH's state government is perfectly willing to hold their primary early even if the party tells them not to and no way candidates are going to resist the siren song of competing in the first contest, and C. NH is a swing state and is really touchy and I don't particularly want NH to start voting GOP because Dems kill their stupid tradition and GOP keeps with it.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,625
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2020, 05:03:59 AM »

I don't like that New Hampshire is early, but A. the GOP isn't losing NH, and B. NH's state government is perfectly willing to hold their primary early even if the party tells them not to and no way candidates are going to resist the siren song of competing in the first contest, and C. NH is a swing state and is really touchy and I don't particularly want NH to start voting GOP because Dems kill their stupid tradition and GOP keeps with it.

New Hampshire is 0 for 3 in the last competitive Democratic primaries. If its residents are so petulant that they turn into Alabama just because Democrats deny them the (unearned) privilege of being the first presidential primary in the nation, then that's their problem.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2020, 08:09:47 PM »

I would be fine with Iowa getting bumped after Nevada and South Carolina given their massive clusterf**k caucus this year.

If we're keeping roughly the current system intact, it's probably the path of least resistance and easiest change to make to bump Iowa, ban caucuses, and make the list New Hampshire/Nevada (a primary)/South Carolina/New state. I've heard good arguments for Illinois as the new state for #4...a big state, yes, but a big state going fourth isn't the same as it going first. Another possibility might include Michigan. A big northern state in the Midwest.

EDIT: another advantage of this might be that it'd be a good calendar for the GOP as well, and the two parties like to keep their two calendars more or less harmonious. NH/NV/SC/IL works fine as a first four for the GOP and they no longer have to worry about the Iowa caucus giving a huge bump to random religious charlatans.

Works for me although I would expect a big fight about who gets to be the fourth (early) state after NH/NV/SC.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2020, 02:08:51 PM »

National primary day or bust.

If you fear that "does not give small candidates a chance" well then either "too bad" or do several rounds (say, every last sunday of every month from February to June has a primary, each worth 20% of the total delegates)
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2020, 04:55:21 PM »

I think that the primary system could (should?) undergo much bigger reform, but if I have to keep it just to proposing a new state to come first, I'll say this:

The first state to vote in the Democratic presidential primaries should be a small (in population) state with a sizable number of Black voters and Hispanic voters, and possibly also Asian American voters.
Nevada hits that perfectly.

Secondary choices could be:
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Oklahoma (see also: Native Americans)
Delaware (?) (heavy emphasis on Black voters)

Wild card: ALASKA just because it has the most Native Americans of any state and the logistics would be weird
Logged
Tamika Jackson
beeman
Rookie
**
Posts: 209
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2020, 09:41:21 AM »

NH is a great equalizer as it is so easy and inexpensive to campaign there.
Logged
DabbingSanta
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,679
United States
P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2020, 01:22:24 PM »

They are far more representative demographically, so yea, there's a pretty strong case to move these states up front. I think it would quickly narrow down the front runners like Iowa and New Hampshire were intended to do but don't any more. Black votes matter!

Iowa: 89% white, 6% hispanic, 4% black

NH: 92% white, 3% hispanic, 1% black

Nevada: 51% white, 28% hispanic, 9% black

SC: 64% white, 28% black, 6% hispanic

USA: 63% white, 15% hispanic, 13% black
Logged
foolcase
boringindy
Rookie
**
Posts: 144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 18, 2020, 10:16:36 AM »

West Virginia and Oklahoma should go first.
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2020, 05:05:51 AM »

Why can't we mix it up? Give NORTH Carolina or Georgia, both far better states with better people, time in the limelight.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2020, 08:32:44 AM »

No. The order should be drawn randomly by lottery, with the stipulation that the same state or states can't go first or last twice in a row.

Although TBF, I don't think New Hampshire and Iowa matter as much as people think they do, otherwise we would be looking at President Sanders.
Logged
CookieDamage
cookiedamage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,998


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2020, 05:35:14 PM »

I want NJ to be far more important than it is.
Logged
kwabbit
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2020, 03:29:02 AM »

I think Delaware should be the first state tbh. Small, pretty representative. Black but not overwhelmingly so. I don't really see any downsides.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2020, 06:44:28 AM »

IDK.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2020, 09:46:25 AM »

Maybe a 50 state primary election held on one day would work better for both political parties? Another option would be to go back to the pre-1976 selection of Presidential candidates. Had the pre-1976 Presidential nominee selection system been in place, Donald Trump would not have had a chance to win the Republican nomination.
Logged
The Houstonian
alexk2796
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2020, 07:11:48 PM »

I think Delaware should be the first state tbh. Small, pretty representative. Black but not overwhelmingly so. I don't really see any downsides.

Delaware represents the corporate wing of the Democratic Party in terms of whom it elects, so it should not have outsized influence in presidential primaries.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 15, 2021, 07:03:10 PM »
« Edited: February 19, 2021, 05:00:43 PM by Virginia Yellow Dog »

Nevada Democrats will no longer be using caucuses to select presidential nominees:

Nevada Democrats move to end presidential caucuses
A new bill would convert the state’s nominating system to a primary election that would threaten New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status.
Logged
Coastal_Elite
Rookie
**
Posts: 161
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -7.48

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2021, 10:08:46 PM »

No, we should have a national "Primary Day" where all states vote on the same day.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2021, 11:17:44 AM »

We should have a national primary day, where all states vote on the same day. Why should IW/NH/SC/NV pick the nominee? "Giving lesser known candidates a chance" my ass. No caucuses and use ranked choice voting.

Or, we could have 13-14 states votes. Make it 4 Saturdays in February. No need for it to drag on for months and months. Jesus
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2021, 07:25:48 PM »

Yes, and I (hopefully in conjunction with the Republicans) would strip New Hampshire of all delegates (including Superdelegates), and ban candidates who campaign there, from having their delegates seated at the convention until they change their ridiculous law that requires them to go first every year.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: March 03, 2021, 12:44:12 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2021, 11:56:54 AM by MarkD »

No.

We should adopt a constitutional amendment that creates a schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries.

Prohibit any state from holding a presidential primary or caucus before April 1.

Allow the smallest states, which have just 3 or 4 electoral college votes, to hold primaries in April. This would mean Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming could all choose a date in April for their primaries/caucuses. (The amendment would probably also stipulate that the New Hampshire law that says their state must be first in the nation would be void.)

Allow the medium-sized states, which have 5 to 11 electoral college votes, to hold primaries/caucuses in May. The states which could do so would be Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. These states could choose any date in May for when to hold their primares or caucuses.

Make all of the largest states wait until June to hold their primaries or caucuses. That would include Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Again, these states could choose any date in June. The majority of delegates to the national conventions would not be selected until June.

With our current system, the nominations are usually already assured by March, and we have to wait an agonizing amount of time until the conventions are held.
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: March 03, 2021, 05:52:08 PM »

No.

We should adopt a constitutional amendment that creates a schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries.


No, because how a party selects its nominee shouldn't be in the constitution and should have more democratic input.
Logged
SInNYC
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,204


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2021, 12:34:19 PM »

Several of the comments here implicitly assume the Democratic party. But for numerous reasons, both parties need to have their primaries/caucuses on the same day (I realize there are a few exceptions currently). Any change needs to be appropriate for both parties. And if you are for legal/constitutional changes, you need to account for 3rd parties too.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2021, 07:38:18 AM »

No.

We should adopt a constitutional amendment that creates a schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries.


No, because how a party selects its nominee shouldn't be in the constitution and should have more democratic input.

We get "democratic input" when we ask the states to ratify this proposal.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2021, 02:14:55 PM »

no, because we should have it be nationwide, all at once.

Just because that is the logical conclusion to a nationwide trend as states front-load their primaries doesn't make it any better of an idea.  Front-loading is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, not institutionalized.  Are you truly not concerned that a nationwide primary will advantage only those candidates with the money and resources to compete on a national scale?  Do we really want only billionaires and millionaires to compete for the nomination?  Because that is exactly what this will lead to -the selling of the Democratic Party presidential nomination to the highest bidder.  


Is that why Bloomberg was so successful on Super Tuesday?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 14 queries.