Didn’t Rothchild’s proposal keying convention seats to past electoral votes exist in the past, maybe in the early ‘60s and before? When did that change, and why? Was the change responsive in part to the civil rights era, with more black voters eligible to participate in the primaries and in the general elections?
I am not wedded to keeping New Hampshire as the first primary state. (Ditto for Iowa.) While it has a number of advantages, as recited by Peter, its demographics and political ideology are idiosyncratic and far from representative of the nation and of the Democratic electorate nationwide. A state with greater black and hispanic participation would certainly be more representative. I am not sure South Carolina is ideal--the proportion of blacks among Democratic primary voters is very high, and the state goes strongly Republican in statewide general elections. So long as most of the South, including Florida and Texas, is firmly in the Republican camp, I think it should carry less weight in determining the Democratic Presidential nominee.
In terms of an ideal first primary state, I don’t think there is a clear first choice. I’d prefer a state that is not too big and that allows for retail rather than wholesale campaigning. States like Virginia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin might be suitable--all are purple, potentially winnable by the Democrat in the general election. Maybe Nevada as well, although that may give too much weight to the union role. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota are probably all too large for retail campaigning.
Didn’t Rothchild’s proposal keying convention seats to past electoral votes exist in the past, maybe in the early ‘60s and before? When did that change, and why? Was the change responsive in part to the civil rights era, with more black voters eligible to participate in the primaries and in the general elections?
I am not wedded to keeping New Hampshire as the first primary state. (Ditto for Iowa.) While it has a number of advantages, as recited by Peter, its demographics and political ideology are idiosyncratic and far from representative of the nation and of the Democratic electorate nationwide. A state with greater black and hispanic participation would certainly be more representative. I am not sure South Carolina is ideal--the proportion of blacks among Democratic primary voters is very high, and the state goes strongly Republican in statewide general elections. So long as most of the South, including Florida and Texas, is firmly in the Republican camp, I think it should carry less weight in determining the Democratic Presidential nominee.
In terms of an ideal first primary state, I don’t think there is a clear first choice. I’d prefer a state that is not too big and that allows for retail rather than wholesale campaigning. States like Virginia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin might be suitable--all are purple, potentially winnable by the Democrat in the general election. Maybe Nevada as well, although that may give too much weight to the union role. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota are probably all too large for retail campaigning.
I think all candidates, regardless of party, should be on an all voters' ballot in each state. The top two would be on the November ballot.