New Hampshire angry about Nevada primary
New Hampshirites seem really, really angry that the DNC has recommended having the Nevada caucus held after Iowa's but before New Hampshire's primary. Why Nevada? It has a strong labor contingent. Still, why does New Hampshire feel it has a God-given right to have one of the first cracks at choosing the presidential nominees?
<<< "Strange statues around the world" An alternative way to getting rid of the Electoral College >>>
It's their right because they want it to be their right. It's important to them and they fight for it. Nobody else bothers.
It is not Iowa nor New Hampshire's right to have the first set of primaries. I believe ALL 50 states should have a rotating schedule to be the first primary in an election year. Only then will all 50 states and the whole population feel that their decision matters.
Response to Angiven: Nobody else bothers because the decision has been made by the time our state (40 of the 50 states) is up for a vote. This truly isn't fair nor democratic.
I agree NH law dictates to the country that they should be first. Now Michigan is stripped of delegates as well as Florida, what goofiness. You are trying to get people to support your party yet you cost them dollars.
A rotation would be fairer among the states.
Post new comment