(What is RSS?)It’s interesting looking back at this goal, as it seems many states had a similar idea.
I talked with people in Washington state, and they didn’t it was worth pursuing. In fact, there was motion to demote the primary down to a caucus here.
I mainly wanted to do this to give Washington state a national impact in the election, but perhaps there are better ways to do that than something like this.
I have nothing against the people in Iowa and New Hampshire. I trust their judgement on the abilities to nominate candidates in their respective parties as any other state.
But why does it have to be the same two states every year? Why not rotate them? That can’t be that much more complex to implement.
Sure, politicians will be vigilantly studying the voting habits and demographics of each state that gets its turn to have the first caucus or primary. But it’s better than having both grand ol’ parties going back to their encyclodediae of books that are doubtlessly titled “Iowa and New Hampshire: the keys to the presidency (How to make these states work for you)”.
So, I wanted to help draft an initiative for Washington state making it have the primary first before any other state, similar to the New Hampshire law.
Sure, this will create a constitutional crisis. But if this is the best way to address this issue, then why not? There’s no chance of convincing the federal government to pass a law undoing the current status quo as far as who gets to have their caucuses and primaries first.
Granted, there could be good, bad, or just plain pointless reasons to do this, I admit. And I’m welcome to hear all of your comments.
But I’ve asked the “Why Iowa and New Hampshire first every election?” question to many, many people, and I’ve yet to get a non-stuttering concise, succinct explanation why this is the way it must be.
