What is so special about Iowa and New Hampshire>

[FJO]

Iowa and New Hampshire.

Could someone explain to me the significance of these two overblown, undeserved, underpopulated, insignificant and unimportant states to play such a big role in the election of the next President of the United States?

Why not New Mexico and Idaho?

Why not Georgia and Oregon?

Why not the first two alphabetically. Or by size of land area? Or by population?

Why not break with unreasonable and stupid tradition and let the first two states picked in a lottery?

Why not hold all primaries on the same day, about four months before the general election?

Anyone.... anyone...?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only fair way to do it would be all of them on the same day.

 

[HappyJoy]

There is no significance to Iowa or New Hampshire other than they are first. I don't like the idea of rotating states every four years. For example, putting California, New York or Texas first guarantees the states following have even less importance in picking nominees. Putting really small population states first gives them too much importance. Who gives a fuck who Alaska or North Dakota nominates?

I'd like to see regional primaries of proportional sizes that gives the nominees a chance to at least shake some hands and do a little retail politicking, I think that's important. But then again, who goes first? Maybe a national primary but I think that pretty much kills any chance the candidates have of walking in street parades, eating fried foods on a stick or stumping the county fair circuit. ...Maybe is it time for a change. Though I don't think many people really care and who ever suggest big changes just made an enemy out of two states.

 

[MisterBeale]

What is so special about these states? The parties have tight control over them. Heaven forbid the people choose the candidates.

So, at least this time around, the party will have complete control. Until they have control in some different states, that is how it is going to be.

RNC Chair: Iowa and New Hampshire Aren’t “Sacred Cows” After 2016
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/73980/rnc-chair-iowa-new-hampshire-arent-sacred-cows-after-2016
If anything, the RNC offered protection to those early states this cycle like never before, approving severe penalties for any state that leapfrogged them on the calendar. But Priebus said every aspect of his party’s primary system will be reevaluated after this upcoming election, and said no special treatment will be given to the traditional early states.


“I don’t think there should ever be any sacred cows as to the primary process or the order,” he said.

Priebus raised the issue unsolicited when asked what, if anything, he’d failed to fix ahead of the 2016 primary season. The chairman said he understands the difficulty of displacing any of the four “carve-out” states at the front of the calendar—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada—but said the party would benefit from bringing new ideas and fresh blood into the process.

 

[FJO]

The only fair way to do it would be all of them on the same day.

Exactly!

All states, the entire country on the same day, like about three months before the election.

Then a secondary, with the two survivors of the primary of each party a month later to determine presidential contender.

Then unto the general election.

Imagine how much a normal system like that would save, financially, politically, emotionally and psychologically.

BTW, shouldn't all contenders for higher office resign their current job with no going back without being reelected?

BTW, I would still like to know why are two underpopulated, insignificant pissant little states like New Hampshire and Iowa are entitled to have such heavy influence on the election of the President?

Somebody, please explain.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only fair way to do it would be all of them on the same day.

Exactly!

All states, the entire country on the same day, like about three months before the election.

Then a secondary, with the two survivors of the primary of each party a month later to determine presidential contender.

Then unto the general election.

Imagine how much a normal system like that would save, financially, politically, emotionally and psychologically.

BTW, shouldn't all contenders for higher office resign their current job with no going back without being reelected?

BTW, I would still like to know why are two underpopulated, insignificant pissant little states like New Hampshire and Iowa are entitled to have such heavy influence on the election of the President?

Somebody, please explain.

The states alone decide when to have their primaries.

 

[FJO]

The only fair way to do it would be all of them on the same day.

Exactly!

All states, the entire country on the same day, like about three months before the election.

Then a secondary, with the two survivors of the primary of each party a month later to determine presidential contender.

Then unto the general election.

Imagine how much a normal system like that would save, financially, politically, emotionally and psychologically.

BTW, shouldn't all contenders for higher office resign their current job with no going back without being reelected?

BTW, I would still like to know why are two underpopulated, insignificant pissant little states like New Hampshire and Iowa are entitled to have such heavy influence on the election of the President?

Somebody, please explain.

The states alone decide when to have their primaries.

That is exactly the inexplicable insanity of the current situation.

The election is for the highest federal office, therefore the methodology of the federal election, down to the last detail, from beginning to end, should be determined and decided by federal authority.