I, too, like the way which Utah runs their political primary conventions. What's not to like about a system which sent a RINO like Bob Bennett packing and gave us a firebrand conservative like Mike Lee? OTOH, I think the system works well for Utah because it is a small state with a very high level of political activity. Everybody knows everybody else and all that.
I wonder how it would work in a big state like Pennsylvania where the population and political interests are far more heterogeneous.
Maybe my proposal would be a stepping stone for moving us in that direction. All things considered, I agree that money plays an over-sized role in selecting nominees. But even worse is the over-sized role played by a mostly monolithic media and states with big populations which have a near zero chance of voting GOP in November, New York and California being the poster boys.
Then you have the attention whores like Iowa and New Hampshire. They are a lesser problem, in my opinion, because they are at least somewhat in the swing state status. But they do have an over-sized influence on the media coverage and perception of momentum.
Just for the purposes of this discussion, I decided to list the states by order of their voting preference in a 20-year period (counting 6 Presidential elections between 1988-2008):
“Perfect 6 (voted GOP all years in the period)” (13 states)
Alabama
Alaska
Idaho
Kansas
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Wyoming
“5 out of 6” (6 states)
Arizona (all but 1996)
Georgia (all but 1992)
Indiana (all but 2008)
Montana (all but 1992)
North Carolina (all but 2008)
Virginia (all but 2008)
“4 out of 6” (7 states)
Arkansas (all but 1992 & 1996)
Colorado (all but 1992 & 2008)
Florida (all but 1996 & 2008)
Kentucky (all but 1992 & 1996)
Louisiana (all but 1992 & 1996)
Missouri (all but 1992 & 1996)
Tennessee (all but 1992 & 1996)
“Half/Average (equal to 3 elections won by Dems nationally and 3 by GOP)” (3 states)
Nevada (against GOP in 1992, 1996, 2008)
Ohio (against GOP in 1992, 1996, 2008)
West Virginia (against GOP in 1988, 1992, 1996)
“2 out of 6” (2 states)
New Hampshire (voted GOP only in 1988 & 2000)
New Mexico (voted GOP only in 1988 & 2004)
“1 out of 6 (hostile to GOP Presidential candidates)” (11 states)
California (last voted GOP in 1988)
Connecticut (last voted GOP in 1988)
Delaware (last voted GOP in 1988)
Illinois (last voted GOP in 1988)
Iowa (last voted GOP in 2004, and before that not since 1984)
Maine (last voted GOP in 1988)
Maryland (last voted GOP in 1988)
Michigan (last voted GOP in 1988)
New Jersey (last voted GOP in 1988)
Pennsylvania (last voted GOP in 1988)
Vermont (last voted GOP in 1988)
“Rotten Zero (viscerally opposed to GOP Presidential candidates)” (8 states + DC)
District of Columbia (never cast a vote for GOP for President)
Hawaii (last voted GOP in 1984)
Massachusetts (last voted GOP in 1984)
Minnesota (last voted GOP in 1972) — current longest record for voting against GOP Presidential nominee
New York (last voted GOP in 1984)
Oregon (last voted GOP in 1984)
Rhode Island (last voted GOP in 1984)
Washington (last voted GOP in 1984)
Wisconsin (last voted GOP in 1984)
Now this exclusively address their Presidential preference and doesn’t go into their votes for Governor, Senator, Congress, legislature, etc.
In listing this, I would obviously tend to give more credence to those who’ve voted the most for the GOP and least for those that haven’t. I’ll mention the “Big 3” early primary/Caucus states...
As you can see, South Carolina does deserve considerable credibility on picking a nominee as they have been consistently pro-GOP (not since 1976 have they voted Democrat, and before that, 1960). Not necessarily an argument that it deserves the definitive first position in early voting states, but at least it can make the case.
Now look at New Hampshire. It has only voted twice for the GOP candidate in the period covered (1988, which ended the period when it was a more GOP-leaning state Presidentially, and as of this year, lasted voted GOP in 2000 (and only by a slim plurality, with normal Gore voters getting peeled off to Nader) and didn’t even stick with the incumbent in 2004, even as Dubya got a slightly higher % of the vote). In other words, I wouldn’t even call NH a swing state with that record (and voted for the Democrat in 2008 with over 54% of the vote, higher than the national average - McCain carried not even a single county, a first for a GOP candidate in the state since at least the 19th century - even Bob Dole & Barry Goldwater carried at least 1 county). Clearly it is a reliable Democrat state. It has no business being a determining factor for a GOP Presidential candidate and should be swiftly jettisoned as an “early state.” What’s the worst that can happen ? They vote Democrat as they have in every election, save 1, beginning in 1992 ?
Iowa is even worse. Aside from 2004, when GW Bush won by a plurality, it lasted voted GOP for President way back in 1984. It voted 54% for the Democrat in 2008, higher than the national average. It should have even lesser of a say than New Hampshire.
We see Texas staring out at us as a “perfect 6” state, but how often has it even figured as a major player in deciding the nominee ? Democrat New Hampshire is make or break for the GOP nominee, but reliably GOP Texas isn’t ? There’s something seriously wrong there. Texas, as the largest reliably GOP state, should have an equally BIG say.
Anyway, just a few points to augment yours.