2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat is the impact of the order of primary voting?
How much does the order in which the state primaries are held affect which candidates reach the "magical number" first in close elections?
If my state was one always late to the p-voting table, I would feel like I had very little "skin" in the primary process. It would be interesting if it was rotational, but I don't know how that could happen.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Or at least the order changes. California voted on Super Tuesday in 2008.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)A big state voting early is really no different than a large region voting on the same day early.
The inherent power of increased influence was why southern governors pushed for the first super-Tuesday.
We need a process that invites many voices and allows good candidates with good and popular ideas but without national name recognition to compete with candidates with run of the mill (sometimes even unpopular) ideas but lots of celebrity.
Front loading the primaries with major influence on the process biases it toward celebrity candidates and does nothing to guarantee an airing let alone selection of ideas desired from future leadership.
TexasTowelie
(111,285 posts)having the primaries in smaller states such as New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa and South Carolina gives outsiders an opportunity to catch on with the voters and build their campaign warchests. Campaigns such as Sanders would have little likelihood of being viable if the primaries began in California, Texas, New York or Florida because they would lack the financial resources to advertise in multiple television markets.
Bernie's strongest geographic regions were the Rust Belt states and the northern Midwest states. A regional primary in the Rust Belt states or the Pacific states may have helped Bernie's campaign, but he wouldn't have had the financial resources or name recognition to be competitive.