The one thing I think almost every voter in 48 states will agree with is a simple little rule of thumb. Make Iowa and New Hampshire go last!
It's too bad our national parties don't have the courage to do something different and give other voters in the late primaries a chance to be part of the process.
You can't blame just the national organizations. The states are just as much to blame. If enough places like New Mexico would begin protesting, something would be changed.
I'm not holding my breath.
Thanks to the bully tactics of the Tea Parties and the far left organizations, our candidates and office holders are so whipped, so lacking in courage, they they are never going to stand up and do something original and creative. They are afraid of their own shadows half the time.
Making a change in the order that the states vote in the primaries would take courage.
The last thing I expect out of elected officials, Democrat or Republican, or potential candidates is actual courage. They have none. They do, though, know how to pander to the special interest groups who make the most noise and are the most obnoxious.
Plain old, normal, average voters just don't count, not any more. We're no longer important enough to attract the attention of Senate or Congressional candidates, let alone someone running in a primary for POTUS. Normal voters have morphed into the ugly girls at a school dance. No one's going to bother with us. Not where there are exciting and glamorous states like Iowa and New Hampshire with all their seductive early primary voters and caucus attendees.
Article comments
1 - Baronius
I think the monolithic (or bilithic) primary system is being challenged on a number of fronts. First of all, several states have moved their primaries earlier. Secondly, Iowa's credibility has diminished because of the nature of the caucus system and some of the picks they've made. You've seen SC become more influential, and the Super Tuesday states carry more influence by joining together. Additionally, the superdelegate system, while it may strengthen the party's power compared to the voter's, does diminish the power of the early-primary voter.
In 2008, Iowa and NH didn't settle anything. Three prominent Republicans battled forward, and Giuliani didn't even participate (although that turned out to be a bad play on his part). Among the Democrats, Clinton stayed viable for so long that the convention could have actually been interesting.
And finally, one comment in defense of the current system. If we had 51 important primaries, the early contributors would have even more say than they do now. A candidate wouldn't run if he didn't have enough money to compete everywhere. The current system at least gives a shot to the little guy, and a voice (via debates) to the forgotten elements within the party.