Should Nevada and South Carolina be the First Two States?

[Frodo]

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?

Thank goodness Biden won in South Carolina, and used that momentum to power his way to the nomination on Super Tuesday.  Had we had all states voting on the same day before Rep. Jim Clyburn made his famous (and timely) endorsement, I doubt we would have seen the same outcome. 

[LAKISYLVANIA]

No. I want the order to stay the same, and I don't know why people are pushing for this. South Carolina isn't competitive and isn't demographically the same as the average state in the USA, so all your arguments for moving Iowa later to the agenda, doesn't make sense, because South Carolina has exactly the same issues as Iowa.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

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.

Except for DC which if it will become a state will have more EV's and perhaps Delaware, there are no Afro-Americans (or basically none) and even less Hispanics in your april states, so absolutely not. Also, aside none of those states are esactly competitive, except for Iowa, New Hampshire and Maine, and some will argue those are not very competitive as well.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Perhaps a better idea is to split the bigger states into district primaries and make it a bit more complicated to look for cheap states to campaign in, allowing candidates to start a grassroots campaign and test the waters while being tested among several demographics, although right now we already have a quite diverse first four which do the same thing if you combine all those states together (IA, NV, SC and NV, which is a microcosm as well).

[Utah Neolib]

Yes, they much better represent the democratic coalition than New Hampshire and Iowa