Instead of having states move their primaries earlier and earlier...?

Question

...why don't we for each election, just randomly assign the order?

Our current 'solution' is to frontload all of the primaries which means only wellfunded candidates have a chance.

If we spread out the primaries, then underfunded (yet qualified) candidates have a chance to gain momentum. Since different states would get to go first each election, then no state will get to go first all of the time (like Iowa and New Hampshire).

Thoughts?

Answer 1

That would work also I like the alternating region model that has been discussed.

Answer 2

Actually, the primaries should be in the order of the number of delegates the states have. The states with the lowest number of delegates are first, the states with the highest number of delegates should be last. That way the candidates and their positions on the issues would get the longest exposure to the voters before the decision is made. There would be the longest possible time to examine all of the issues, all of the candidates, and all of their positions on the issues.

Also, candidates with less money would be able to stay in the race longer, and if they become popular with the voters, they would be able to then raise more money and compete in the later, and larger, primaries.

Answer 3

That would be an improved way of doing it. But, I think the parties should make an agreement that there will be a national primary day on February 5th and all states who do not agree to it would not get delegates. Not all of them would give in, but there would be plenty of candidates who would ignore the early states and they would become quickly irrelevant.

Answer 4

I like the idea of a lottery system for primary dates. You are right in that the current method lets some states that are not Representative of the general population unfairly preload the general election. I see no reason to let small eastern states dictate our candidates year after year.
Ed