Reince Priebus, national chair of the Republican Party, says in an interview published in National Journal that he and many leaders of the Republican Party tend to believe that Iowa and New Hampshire should not always be the first states to vote for presidential nominees. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
He’s got a tiger by the tail on this one. New Hampshire and Iowa will always be first. History will insist in it.
The wrong article is linked above; it’s an article about Edward Snowden.
But if the Republicans are considering taking Iowa and New Hampshire out of their privileged slots in the primary/caucus schedule, I’m all for that.
If IA and NH didn’t already have the first caucus and primary, and Americans learned of another country having its candidates for leader spend most of the year before the election campaigning in two small provinces in preference to the rest of the country, we would think that was ridiculous.
Joshua –
Scroll down from the Edward Snowden article to get the one about Priebus.
Will the USA survive until 2020 is the MAJOR question.
Both EVIL top gangs are playing for PERMANENT control of the USA gerrymander regime with its various domestic oppressions and undeclared foreign wars.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
@Gene: Thanks. I believe this URL should be the direct link:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/73980/rnc-chair-iowa-new-hampshire-arent-sacred-cows-after-2016
New Hampshire will send it’s National Guard to invade Congress before it surrenders it’s “first in the nation” status.
What?! And not allow the GOP profile of under-educated crotchety old white people to determine the GOP’s front-runner candidate?
Not gonna happen.
NH State law will need to be changed for another state to have an earlier primary. I can tell you based on my experience dealing with the NH Legislature, that will never pass out of committee!
The national Republican Party this year has been very tough on states that violated its rules, with regard to timing of presidential primaries. In the end, every state in the nation bowed to the national Republican Party rules. North Carolina was the last to do so, moving its primary from February to March (just last week that happened). If the Republican national party told New Hampshire to get in line or it would lose all its delegates, that would probably work.
A larger state should switch to direct nominations for President. It could include votes from earlier primaries discounted by some factor (say 1% per day early).
For example, if California were the state to institute this, each California party could designate affiliated parties in each of the other 49 States plus District of Columbia. There might be some sort of certification process to ensure that the other State primary process is consistent with that in California, including all California-qualified candidates to be on the ballot.
Since California has relatively late candidate qualification, they could permit early qualification. If candidate Bloggs is qualified in California, then if any votes from Kudzu are to be counted, Bloggs must be on the Kudzu primary ballot. If Baffle is on the primary ballot in Kudzu, but not (yet) in California, his votes will count in California if he later qualifies in California.
Assuming an early June primary in California, and a 1% per day discount, primaries before March will have little value.
@Darryl: New Hampshire law says that the presidential primary is to be held “… on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election …”
I wonder what would happen if another state passed a law to hold its primary also 7 days before any other state held a similar election. Presumably both NH and the other state would have to keep setting their primaries back earlier and earlier. Or one of the states would have to back down and change its law.