>>
>>But you can make the argument in the opposite direction. Only about 12 states mattered in this election, so the campaigns visited them over and over. Voters in California and New York and Texas and Wyoming and ... didn't get to have an impact.
>>
>
>When emotions cool down, there will be time to consider this.
>We really got the shaft in 2000, when you could make the case that Gore won on both counts, only to have it stolen by some robed thieves.
>However, even if we get the White House, we're being killed in congressial and in state and local elections, where people's lives are most affected.
>The party has been clobbered since the 2010 mid-terms and has to acknowledge that it's out of touch with the electorate.
>
>I personally think that the electoral system is OK
>
>However, I'd be for a national primary election day held one year before the presidential election, where the national popular vote would select the winner for each party, with other candidates who meet minimum vote requirements getting on the ticket.
>The current primary system is crazy.

I'm opposed to a single national primary day because it strongly favors the party favorite and doesn't provide time for an insurgent to build a following. However, I've run across two alternate systems that I think would be a major improvement on what we do now. Both involve having 4 primary dates, essentially a month apart. Call it one each in March, April, May and June.

Version 1: Organize states by size and divide them into 4 roughly equal groups. Hold the primaries from smallest to largest. It eliminates the "white state" advantage we now have with Iowa and NH first. It also increases dramatically the chance that the big states matter, but still leaves a role for the smaller states.

Version 2: Organize the states geographically into 4 groups of roughly equal size (could be # of states or population). Have each group go on one of the dates and rotate from election to election which group goes first. Again, eliminates the "white state" advantage. It should cost less because each month the campaigns are focused on one geographic area. It means every state gets a turn at mattering.

I think either would be a vast improvement on the current system. I lean toward the first.

Tamar