Good could come of having the primaries in north east Iowa. Occasionally the earth opens up and swallows stuff. This could lead to a new way to choose the candidates that makes no state have an advantage, and reduces the need for millions of dollars in campaigning.
It strikes me that there is another scenario that could eventually happen, which nobody seems to mention:
With practically every state moving itself to “super-dooper-great-big-whooper” Tuesday sometime in January, we’ve shortened the primary season to a point where no clear consensus emerges after a majority of the primary elections. Because the elections are all happening at once up front, the majority of delegates are scattered all over a field of three or four candidates, or there are two front runners neither of whom has a majority of delegates. We wind up with South Dakota and Montana, who’ve steadfastly held onto their late primaries effectively choosing the candidate, and everybody else’s nose is out of joint about THIS outcome. Or, for the first time in decades, we actually wind up with a major party candidate being chosen at the convention, like in the old days. That would actually be very interesting. And in the NEXT primary states are trying to push their primaries back to be the “kingmaker”.
I don’t think any kind of schedule rotation is the answer. With primaries happening only on a four year basis, the “rebalancing” is way too slow for people to accept it as fair - “We’re going to have to wait 12 years to get to the head of the line? That’s bogus!”. I would rather see a single primary date, which will usually produce no clear winner. The party then has a runoff, or accepts that the nomination has to be thrashed out at the convention. If the latter is to be avoided at all costs, then what in bloody hell to they have the conventions for, anyway? Yeah, I know - to draft the platform. Right.
<mod>
This thread’s primary place is now in Great Debates.
Take that, New Hampshire.
Moved.
</mod>
Could there be an issue of civil rights? That the imbalance in the set up of the primary system causes the votes to be treated unequally.
Could the other states sue NH and IA over their laws requiring they get preferential treatment? Well I suppose they could sue but is it winnable?
I don’t think anyone is going to get upset in that situation. They all would have had their chance to be in the spotlight. If they happened to choose the same day as NY and California, that’s their problem.
But SD and MT aren’t the only ones with late primaries. There’s about a dozen states that have not moved their primaries/caucuses to February or earlier, including such large states as Texas, Ohio, and Penn. In fact, Pennsylvania seems to be the only primary in the entire month of April. If the nominations are sewn up by then, they are really going to be getting the attention!
Also note that I’ve seen some listings of primaries (notably Project Vote Smart) that have Oregon’s primary on Feb 5. This is incorrect. There was a bill voted out of an Oregon House committee that would have moved it, but it’s essentially dead.