As is stands, Iowa (7), New Hampshire (4) and South Carolina (8) are just 3.5% of the total electoral votes--much too small to wield such influence.

Well, that's probably better than what we have, but my main concern has been that the early states are not necessarily Republican (and certainly not conservative) states.

If we continue to give primacy to those states, we will continue to end up with RINO candidates.

I suggest that rather than being fixed in any particular order, the order of primaries should be predicated on a couple of other things:

1. States with closed primaries are in the first round. This will reduce the impact of crossover votes.

2. Of those states with closed primaries, the order would be determined in descending order of States that are the MOST Republican. This would involve a calculation of two factors:the percent of Republican Senators and Representatives; and the percent of the registered population that are registered Republicans.)

Steve - good suggestion. Hollowpoint over at Ace of Spades HQ said the same thing. Joe came up with this:

1st Month GOP, 3rd Month Dem: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Kansas, Alaska, Texas, Indiana, South Dakota, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee

2nd Month: Louisiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida, Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota

3rd Month GOP, 1st Month Dem: Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, Delaware, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Illinois, California, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, District of Columbia

We need to stop letting Independents and Democrats help chose our candidate!!

That sounds good to me. I've been saying for a long time that I was tired of 2 or 3 states that don't even come close to holding my values deciding who the candidates should be. What you have proposed sounds great but I would add one other twist. When there are more then 2 or 3 candidates allow voting for all candidates by ranking them. That way if 2 candidates are better in your mind your ranking would keep the 2 candidates alive and viable. Just my 2 cents...

Ok, first, the grain of salt: I live in New Hampshire.

Regardless, I have several issues with Slublogs analysis.

1) Right now we are in a Party Dominant formation.
War powers and a growing federal government, and free trade agreements, have limited the power of state legislatures and the House and the Senate. The war issue is known, and hystorically documented effect of war.

So the Party apparatus is kind of sticking up above the head of the state like a couple of horns.

2) The problem is the dominance of the Parties over the other institutions of the State. The problem is NOT the basic way the parties organize. Right now both Parties are being played by high power.

3) The solution is NOT Federal oversight or redefinition of how the parties operate. The Parties are dominant, and all you will end up with is Cementing that configuration.

4) The Party apparatus was designed to be the Animator of the governmental structure. Currently, they are actually becoming the strucuture.

5) Any change to the system should rely on shoring up the electoral college, not breaking it down. The electoral college, for the Presidential elections, is what forces the Parties to argue local policy. Without it, EVERY issue will be nationalized, which will cement the Parties into the power structure.

6) The only way to solve the problem is via mechanisms that structurally devolve power to lower level nodes, such as the Senate, the House, and the States.

First, I need to demonstrate that the problem is that the Parties are above the States.

Recent history:
A) Executive power consolidation
B) States attempt to rearrange primary schedule to give their individual state an advantage ( they are suppose to do this)
B) Party apparatus removes their delegates in retribution.
C) States and candidates acquiesce.
D) Party apparatus ACTUALLY still has the power to regrant delegates as they see fit.

You can see that the Parties are actually in control right now. They are being manipulated for the purposes of relatively embedded high power.

So, as stated, the solution is to structurally devolve power back down to lower power nodes.

Machanisms that would accomplish that:

1) For the executive, mandating, at the state level, that delegates are NOT bound to popular vote, and running a brokered convention. That is, SHORING UP the Electoral College. Follow the power if you don't believe me.

3) For the Senate, prepealing the 17th amendment.

In general:

4) Inceasing the size of individual state legislatures.
5) Repealing NAFTA
6) Receding from the WTO.
7) Leaving the UN.

Each of those is an example of changes that structurally devolve power down to more localized nodes. Doing so would return the parties to animators of the constitutional framework, and prevent the parties from becoming the framework through which power issues are resolved.

While changing the rules of the primary process could theoretically be helpful, the ability to change them in a helpful way does not exist at this time, and instead would only result in further power consolidation to the party apparatus.

I like the idea, but worry about the same problem arising with those states that know they are to be the first time after time (or even on a known schedule). A random, lottery type assignment for each primary season might remove that problem.

Of course the real problem is that the states have every right to decide for themselves when and how they handle their primaries, even if the national party decides to punish them for it, so to try to impose a system from the top will always run into that issue.

Yes, it is a consolidation of power, but I'd argue in this case it's a necessary one. The current system has less than 1% of the total voting population of the United States winnowing the field for the other 99%

That seems a much more troubling concentration of power than allowing the party to set their own rules.

What if every state decided to enact the ridiculous NH "first in the nation" constitutional amendment? Who decides then?

Well, I do agree you have a point there, Slublog, about the problem.

So attemp to fix it, but the fix needs to come from the individual states, not the top. Again, you try to fix it from the top right, the Parties are going to define the "solution", and it will only benefit them.

Or, get the parties to change internally. Also fine. But nothing from the federal level will be helpful.

Respectfully.

Oh, this would be a party-driven thing. No federal government involvement at all, at least how I envision it.

I'm for that. I think you would need to make it as bottom-up as possible to make a difference.

And right now, you could perhaps get a bunch of Dems on board. Most of them are pissed at Clinton - as they should be.

Float it by daily kos, and see if any are interested in the idea. This could actually be a blogosphere project everyone could get behind.

I would suggest a few changes.

I like having Primaries fairly early in just a few smaller States migrating to larger states for say Jan through Feb.

But the States should have a say. Rules could allow states to apply to be but on the list for the Month they prefer. Then a lottery could determine the final order.

It is patently unfair to allow the same states year after year. Thus the first several states could not reapply to go first again for a few cycles until all have a chance to go in the first round that want to.

States making laws to do otherwise should lose all their delegates and candidates should be not allowed to campaign or put their names on their ballots for two cycles. Thus making last minute/crafty laws in states to have real consequences.