• Mouselemming
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    They should let the most populated states go first. I’m tired of having our votes count for nothing because half the candidates have already dropped out by the time they get to us, even though we outnumber the people in all the states that go before us. Those early wins and losses would really mean something if they represented a large and diverse population. Might make up a little for how underrepresented we are in the Electoral College.

      • Mouselemming
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The problem with that version is that, just as in the national election, the candidates will only really campaign in the purple states with a lot of independent or undecided voters. I’d like to see them have to reach out to a diversity of voters within their own parties first. I’m not saying it’s more fair necessarily, just that I think it would be good for the process and maybe help each party wind up with a better (or at least more representative of the party as a whole) candidate in the general.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You as an individual are under-represented, but you as a populous state are too powerful. If California primaries first , no one else matters.

      When New Hampshire primaries first, you get a lot of meeting the candidates, an interesting survey result, but the result is still wide open.

      Either way, it’s all of us in the middle who get shafted. We don’t get an early say but our vote doesn’t count for much with the big guys coming soon.

      I’m torn about whether it is good to be a “safe”state. While it’s nice that we don’t get the nonsense or the robocalls or the mail or the ads, would it hurt to get some attention? Can we be treated like we matter?