Because Oh-Mah-Gawd We Have a Problem: What is the Order of the Primaries?

[Antilogic]

This thread is brought to you by the panel of folks who are already discussing not only the potential presidential candidates and the battleground states of 2016. What are we missing?

That's right, the primary calendar! As it turns out, this is scheduled fresh every 4 years, and there is no guarantee we will have the same schedule for 2016 as we did in 2012! Here's the article and map that prompted this thread:

Reading the Map:
As was the case with the maps from past cycles, the earlier a contest is scheduled in 2012, the darker the color in which the state is shaded. Arizona, for instance, is a much deeper shade of blue in February than California is in June. There are, however, some differences between the earlier maps and the one that appears above.

1. Several caucus states have yet to select a date for the first step of their delegate selection processes in 2016. Until a decision is made by state parties in those states, they will appear in gray on the map.
2. The states where legislation to move the presidential primary is active are two-toned (or three-toned -- see Missouri). One color indicates the timing of the primary according to the current law whereas the second color is meant to highlight the month to which the primary could be moved.
3. States that are bisected vertically are states where the state parties have different dates for their caucuses and/or primaries. The left hand section is shaded to reflect the state Democratic Party's scheduling while the right is for the state Republican Party's decision on the timing of its delegate selection event (see Nebraska). This holds true for states -- typically caucus states -- with a history of different dates across parties but which also have not yet chosen a contest date.

...

So here's the skinny right now: we don't know when Iowa and New Hampshire, the traditional starting states, are going to schedule theirs, but it will likely be in January.

The earliest formally-scheduled primaries and caucuses right now are in February, starting with potentially Colorado and Minnesota caucuses and Missouri and Utah primaries (the diagonal marks indicate there is pending legislation, Missouri could be anywhere between February and April right now). All of these states are on February 2nd right now, making a sort of mini-Tuesday if the legislation all passes.

After that, we have February 23rd, with Arizona and Michigan. However, Arizona has a bill that will fix its primaries to the Iowa primaries, so we won't know for sure if it will stick there.

Super Tuesday on March 1st, because they can't wait, isn't really super right now--we might have Colorado if they don't go in mini-Tuesday, along with Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. The next week has Alabama, Mississippi, and Ohio. Illinois and Louisiana trickle in as March comes to a close.

Florida, which jumped ahead in 2012, might be falling back into March this time around. But there's so much legislation on the table, and so many states without specified dates, the order is still open.

 

[JollyRoger]

I've already tallied the votes for the FEMA Camp I'm managing, pending final approval from George Soros.

 

[dutchfire]

(the diagonal marks indicate there is pending legislation,

So state legislatures are going to vote on when people will be able to vote to decide who they'll be able to vote for? And we're supposed to discuss this? We really have a problem!

 

[Quackers]

I don't see the problem here. Things look like they are being scheduled as normal.
Ahh the NH Primary; aren't their some wards where there are like 20 people living there? XD

Little libertarian paradise from what i've read about it.

 

[downtown]

I support anything that takes away from Iowa and New Hampshire's early positions, seeing as they are 100% completely unjustified. Colorado and a Midwestern state should be some of the first states, given that their demographics are much closer to that of the nation at large than two exceptionally white and agriculturally based states.

 

[Quackers]

Why would giving states with the most "American" ethnic mix be superior than the present system?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I might be going to college in South Carolina, in that case, I will be in a state that is usually important in the primaries.

 

[downtown]

Why would giving states with the most "American" ethnic mix be superior than the present system?

Because the candidates that win the early states get an advantage in funding, press coverage and staff members. If the early states are overrepresented by say, white, rural, evangelicals (like Iowa), you get people like Rick Santorum sticking around a while, even though their politics are really out if sync with the rest of the country. A candidate with lots of experience and credibility with Urban Voters, which represent quite a few actual US voters, would be at a big disadvantage, given that early states are typically very rural.

The best scenario would be to give early primaries to states that are demographically similar (not JUST ethnically) to the rest of the country. Ohio is probably the best example. If you want to have a broad regional swath, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and PA are probably also good choices.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I think that the first primary states should include a Southern State, a Northeastern state, a Midwestern state, and a Western State, and it should change every year so every state can have their chance to be influential.

 

[Antilogic]

So state legislatures are going to vote on when people will be able to vote to decide who they'll be able to vote for? And we're supposed to discuss this? We really have a problem!

YOU BETTER START DISCUSSING!

On a serious note, passing questionable voter ID laws, doing funny business with the primaries, and all the other activities that stack the deck for one side or the other before an election usually raises some eyebrows. Doing it right after the election can let parties get away with more funny business when people are fatigued from the last go-round.

So that's why I'm paying attention now--it's not just an addiction, but this is when the really questionable stuff is sneaked through.

I support anything that takes away from Iowa and New Hampshire's early positions, seeing as they are 100% completely unjustified. Colorado and a Midwestern state should be some of the first states, given that their demographics are much closer to that of the nation at large than two exceptionally white and agriculturally based states.

I think that the first primary states should include a Southern State, a Northeastern state, a Midwestern state, and a Western State, and it should change every year so every state can have their chance to be influential.

I agree. The same couple of states shouldn't go first every time because it distorts the process in favor of policies and candidates favorable to those states.

And Iowa and New Hampshire are first more by accident than design--they had passed local laws for both a primary and a caucus back when this system was first conceived, and there was a minimum time period between the two. So one had to be really early and one had to be late. Then they just dropped the late one once it became obvious what an advantage it was to be early on the list.



The blog I linked to in the OP has some fascinating articles on the interplay between the state governments, which can set their local primaries when they please, and the national parties, which specify rules for the allocation of delegates and penalize the states for going too far out of order. The Republican Party is upping the penalty from removing 50% of delegates if the state jumps ahead to removing all but 9 + the guaranteed 3. So a state like Florida wouldn't fall from 99 delegates to 50 if they pulled what they did in 2012, they would fall from 99 to 12 (!). However, the guarantee of a minimum of 9 doesn't hurt the small states as much as the big ones, so this might incentivize small states to jump ahead and big states to hold back. Will Delaware or Vermont jump up now, since the penalty for them is more like 30% than 50%?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I agree. The same couple of states shouldn't go first every time because it distorts the process in favor of policies and candidates favorable to those states.

And Iowa and New Hampshire are first more by accident than design--they had passed local laws for both a primary and a caucus back when this system was first conceived, and there was a minimum time period between the two. So one had to be really early and one had to be late. Then they just dropped the late one once it became obvious what an advantage it was to be early on the list.

The blog I linked to in the OP has some fascinating articles on the interplay between the state governments, which can set their local primaries when they please, and the national parties, which specify rules for the allocation of delegates and penalize the states for going too far out of order. The Republican Party is upping the penalty from removing 50% of delegates if the state jumps ahead to removing all but 9 + the guaranteed 3. So a state like Florida wouldn't fall from 99 delegates to 50 if they pulled what they did in 2012, they would fall from 99 to 12 (!). However, the guarantee of a minimum of 9 doesn't hurt the small states as much as the big ones, so this might incentivize small states to jump ahead and big states to hold back. Will Delaware or Vermont jump up now, since the penalty for them is more like 30% than 50%?

It sounds like it might be a good idea. Who knows, maybe Kentucky will jump ahead in 2016 and finally become a relevant primary state? One downside is that the early state primaries might be dominated by Delaware, Vermont, Hawaii, and those Western States with more cows than people.

 

[Perfection]

It'd be cool to have a lottery determine the order of primaries every time.

 

[Quintillus]

I think the problem is that they're spread out over 5 months to begin with. So regardless of which state goes first, you'll almost always have part of the country that's essentially disenfranchised when it comes to primaries.

What I'd like to see is them all being the same day, or if that isn't possible for some reason (such as some caucuses taking awhile), at least, say, within the same fortnight. That way South Dakotans and Californians will be as important as Iowans and New Hampshirites.

I'm not sure who could change this, but regardless I'd like (though I don't necessarily expect) to see it happen someday.

 

[Azale]

It'd be cool to have a lottery determine the order of primaries every time.

This is a pretty great idea. You could televise it on CNN, hosted by a holographic Abraham Lincoln. On top of that, you could have fun rolling your eyes at the conspiracy theorists who insist the primary lottery rigged.

 

[bhsup]

The feds have no business telling us in Missouri when to have a primary and/or caucus. Show me in the Constitution where they have that power. Come on, waiting...

 

[sophie]

This is a pretty great idea. You could televise it on CNN, hosted by a holographic Abraham Lincoln. On top of that, you could have fun rolling your eyes at the conspiracy theorists who insist the primary lottery rigged.

I got a better idea. Let's have an NFL-style draft!

[YOUTUBE-OLD]2HLUZq2Hm4w[/YOUTUBE-OLD]

 

[Azale]

So the crappiest candidates get to decide which states go first?

"With the first selection in the 2016 Primary Draft, Rick Perry selects Texas"

 

[Formaldehyde]

Florida decided at the very last minutes of the legislative session to move their primary so that they would no longer be penalized by the Democratic and Republican caucuses for doing so.

The bill also moves the date of the state's presidential primary to conform with rules set by the national political parties, potentially helping Florida Senator Marco Rubio, considered a possible front-runner for the Republican Party nomination in 2016.

In 2012 the state was penalized and lost half its delegates to the national nominating conventions because the Legislature set the primary for January 30, ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire, which are favored by party rules with the first caucuses and primary elections.

They also reversed at least some of the goofy rules put in place by Republicans which made the state such a laughingstock in the 2012 elections.

 

[Goodfella]

Why will Oahu have it's primary later than Hawaii and Maui?

 

[sophie]

So the crappiest candidates get to decide which states go first?

"With the first selection in the 2016 Primary Draft, Rick Perry selects Texas"

Exactly. How fun would that be? You can turn it into a media circus with Mel Kuiper, Jr. and Todd McShay debating the merits of each state, and John Gruden visiting each one individually and asking them questions about whether or not the state is ready to conduct its election in the big show.

Then on draft day these "analysts" could praise each state being drafting with unquantifiable intangibles like "Texas has that real grittiness that makes it a great first round choice". or "Iowa may be a bit of a reach at pick 4 but it's a scrappy fighter and I like this pick John"

And then these discussions can be interrupted by Boomer talking nostalgically about days gone past "John, this pick reminds me of the glory days of California back in the 70s. They were a perennial primary favorite. A real tough primary warrior WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP"