There is only ONE thing to take away and it has nothing to do with partisan finger pointing.
This needs to be the LAST ever Iowa caucus. Iowa and all other States with caucuses need to be mandated to move to a State run primary.
Obviously the problems were on the Democratic side, but then again, the Republicans only had a pro forma contest, so we don’t know if a real contest would have bombed out like the Democrats or not. In any event, it is entirely irrelevant. End the caucuses and you end the problem or potential problem for both sides.
Move to primaries only and while we are at it, move the order around.
California first, followed in weekly order by Texas, Florida and New York.
Then in weekly order Pennsylvania/Illinois, Ohio/Georgia and North Carolina/Michigan.
Then the remaining States, in groups of 5 each week ordered by population.
Then in the final week would be D.C., the territories and overseas voters.
This is about 16 weeks worth of contests. They would start the beginning of February and end in late May.
Iowa would move from first to a point slightly past halfway through the process. New Hampshire would move from second to a point near the end of the process. Neither State should have the influence it currently has.
Iowa is special because it is small and a politician has to get up close and personal with a great many people to build support, but they have had mounting logistical problems over the years.
I wouldn’t make California first, but I would shorten the primary schedule, close off primaries to party affiliation and change it all to rank choice voting
4 days of primary voting a month apart Feb/Mar/Apr/May.
The voting essentially by time zone. Rotates every 4 years.
First year: Eastern time zone (and all others ahead of them) in Feb. Then Central Time zone, Mountain, then Pacific.
Second Year: Central, Mountain, Pacific, Eastern.
Yes I know some states in two time zones, but for this purpose a state would fall into a single time zone.
Alaska and Hawaii would be in the Pacific zone voting.
Sorry, I’m not seeing your point. What better way to eliminate influence on a later primary than to have all primaries simultaneously? And if not, why have the most populous states vote first?
I feel kind of sorry for the good people in the state that to be honest probably love getting all the attention they do during campaigning season since not much else is happening in Iowa, I am sure it’s a boost to their economy as well. But last night was ridiculous and it should be a much easier process as they have denied the victor everything basically that comes out of winning the state going into N.H.
each election cycle divide the states into say 10 baskets
randomly put each state into a basket.
basket #1 votes the first week of feb.
basket 2 week
and so forth for 10 weeks
Small States should not be ruling the choices of the large States. Small States already have a far out sized influence due to the composition of the Senate, the structure of the Electoral College and the fact that the House of Representatives is far too small. They should not be handed even additional structural power and influence.
Put mid sized States up front then and pull small States away from the front.
It still changes things to favor the most populous state though. When PST is first all the politicians would flock to California mainly. For MST, they’d mainly go to Arizona and Colorado. For Central they’d go to Texas and for Eastern they’d go to Florida/NY/PA/Ohio.
But I agree, Iowa as a caucus state and then NH going first is crazy sauce in my mind. They are not demographically representative of democratic voters and as very low populous states, they get an outsized chance to effect the election.
