What if the primary schedule was based upon the margin of victory (or defeat) for each state from the previous election?

What I am proposing is that the more "purple" a state is, the closer to the front of the schedule the state belongs.

The idea being that states with narrow margins of victory have more potential swing voters than other states. And you want a candidate that will appeal to the most swing voters after the primary is over, for the die hard voters will most likely always vote for their candidate.

So imagine a primary schedule where Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, etc. are the first states with a primary. Now we have a whole different type of process which benefits the candidates who can appeal to the center, not the power brokers in Iowa, NH, and South Carolina.

And the greatest thing about the system is that the front runners will constantly be changing based upon the previous election. Now there is a real benefit for the local party organization in a very red or blue state to try to make the election closer so they can move up in the schedule.

Only downside is that NH and Iowa would probably be upset.

But a "purple" state might not necessarily have more moderate swing voters, just a more even distribution of loyal democrats and rebublicans than say, New York or Wyoming.

I don't know that using the margin of general election victory to determine primary election order is a good comparison. Primaries are all about who appeals to the party's base (or, the periennial curse of the democrats, who they think is more "electable"). The general election is about who can hold onto their base while pulling in enough swing voters to win a majority in each state.

I would suggest simplying doing regional primaries and rotate which region goes first.

I am glad you referred to "the periennial curse of the democrats, who they think is more "electable"." In Iowa in 2004, Kerry was a lot of people's second choice. He didn't evoke much enthusiasm. But Iowa caucus-goers chose him as the candidate they thought <i>other</i> people would like best.

Big mistake. 50,000 amateur political consultants is probably worse than one Shrum.

I think this odd sort of arrogance is a function of the Iowa caucuses, where a rather small group in a smallish state think they are steering the party. In New York, primary voters vote for the candidate who appeals to them most, which is what you want to happen, I think. With personality looming so large, at least that provides some information on who the strongest Democrat would be.

I <i>really</i> do not want 50,000 Iowa Democrats trying to decide whether the country is ready to vote for a black man or a white woman.

The only way that works is if you actually have a primary where all voters can cast a vote.

The caucus process will typically involve very few activists in either party. In my precinct there were maybe 20 people. Our vote for a candidate would say nothing about which one would draw the most swing voters.