Replies

I didn’t come up with it. It was one of several suggestions, in addition to the urgent need for closing primaries, that was brought forth following the 2008 nominating fiasco. What do you mean that states would race to see who goes first? What I was saying was that Oklahoma, who voted Republican 66-34 would go first, then Wyoming, who voted 65-33, then Utah and Idaho, at 62-38, and so on. So there’s no way to “race”, other than to vote more heavily Republican the previous election, and to race that way is acceptable. I agree that I don’t know what can be done about caucus states, other than to make a rule saying that no caucus state can caucus before states representing at least 20% of the delegates have voted, or something like that.

It's not a bad idea it is just that states determine the election dates. Look at what happened to the Dims last cycle, the DNC took delegates away from states that didn't follow the order set by the DNC. Yet even then some states raced to be first, remember what happened to Michigan. In any case the open primary system in some states is, IMHO, the major problem with the primary system. And this is set by the state pubbies so I am not sure where we can go with even this idea. Irritating isn't it?