>

Something similar was posted earlier. States that are representative of the entire country should go first. LINK IL is the most representative of the US population as a whole but is firmly blue. 
Michigan (rank 3), Arizona (rank 4), and North Carolina (rank 9) should be the first states to go. They are geographically diverse and swing states so it works for both parties. Cheaper media markets help too
IMO there should be 11 primary days, each primary date has 5 states/territories vote on that day.
All fifty states should have their primaries on the same day. This isn't the 1850s and candidates don't have to campaign by train anymore. The only reason the tiered schedule persists is that it makes make huge amounts of money for the early states. We've tricked ourselves into believing this system produces a better result. It doesn't. End it. >

What about the argument that Obama and Biden wouldn't have won their elections? Lesser known candidates won't have time to make a name for themselves.
Hillary wouldn't beat Obama and Sanders probably would've won the primaries and most likely would've been beaten by Trump. >


What about the argument that Obama and Biden wouldn't have won their elections?

This question presupposes that Obama and Biden were the better choices and that the primary process proved that. I'm not sure I buy it. Especially for Biden in 2020.
​

Lesser known candidates won't have time to make a name for themselves.

If the primaries were held in July, they'd have *more* time. As it is now, nearly all of them drop out by Super Tuesday.
​

Hillary wouldn't beat Obama

Hillary didn't beat Obama.
​

Sanders probably would've won the primaries and most likely would've been beaten by Trump.

This is purely hypothetical. Biden would have had the same chance at the nomination if all the primaries were held in July. The underlying factors would all be the same. Just because it happened one way doesn't mean that's the only way it could have happened. >

I don't accept the premise of states voting in "an order" as a sensible practice. We did it in the past because of the limitations of the speed of information (horse, train, telegraph, etc). Maintaining an order of elections is both unnecessary, and political of itself. Why not simply open polls in all states in late October and close them at midnight EST on 11/8?
None of the states should go first or last. >

South carolina is honestly not a bad choice I think nh has diversity outside of racial diversity and there are defintely plenty w out internet.SC isnt really a seing state either and those should probably be first in terms of real strategy getting palatable candidates in swing states. MI, WI, PA, AZ, are all pretth diverse >

We’re rural, conservative compared to the rest of the party, and not going to any Democratic president anytime soon.
Georgia or North Carolina are far better options. But they actually show a progressive streak every now and then. >

None. The primary should be like the general election: national. 
Candidates can debate and campaign before hand, then be chosen through STAR voting.
Or, if state parties can organize it, a series of nationwide primaries until one candidate has a majority/super-majority or a deadline is hit, and the leader gets the nomination.
Now none of this would happen: the DNC isn’t about representation. We’ll all be dead before an improvement to the party apparatus of substance happens, assuming it ever does. >

Iowa!*
​
I'll see myself out, I'm very happy it isn't us for a change. >

I think Alaska should go first because it is sparsley populated and there are a lot of people who don't have access to internet or TV, so candidates have to go out there and campaign and work hard for those votes rather than sitting on their butts all day and airing ads. Also, choosing a sparsely populated state with lots of people who don't have internet access, allows underdogs with less national name-recognition to win. Alaska does have its drawbacks though, as primary season starts in January, so it would be very cold, but I'm of the opinion that candidates who want my vote should have to treck through an Alaska January to earn my vote. >

Only the most well-monied candidates could afford to travel to Alaska and then afford to travel around within Alaska. 
People whine about Iowa, but it’s centrally located and cheap with low barriers to entry. And regarding the citizenry, if you’ve traveled around the country, you know that you can do a lot worse than random people in Iowa. >

Rotating Regional Primary System is the best alternative to the current primary system that arbitrarily gives some states tremendous power when it comes to electing the president while  giving other states no power.