I don't think NH should have the first primary, but that doesn't mean South Carolina should get it. There are plenty of states with diverse populations who are far more invested in the success of Democrats than there. It's an extremely conservative state, part of the Bible belt and has been voting for GOP presidents since 1980. Jimmy Carter was the last candidate to win there. It's hardly the Democratic vision of the future. Ugh.

We should take all 50 states plus DC and list them in descending order by percentage of voters registered as Dems. Give them a rank 1-51. So that would make DC first. Then do the same kind of ranking but by total number of voters who actually voted D in the last presidential election. So maybe California is #1 there.

You take an average of the two. Not a weighted average, just an average. This would help small states with hefty D % (DC, Vermont) maintain leverage against big states with large populations (CA, TX, FL). Based on whoever comes out in the top 3 of those rankings, those states all vote first, on the same day. The top 5 candidates then proceed onto a subsequent round of the next 22 states who all vote on the same day, then the top 3 candidates of that batch finish up with the last 25 states who all vote on the same day. All rounds are ranked choice voting.

Why should the Dems cater to states where people can't be bothered to vote for Dems or Dems can't win elections? Doing it this way would encourage people who tend to lean Dem but register as unaffiliated or independent voters to change their party registration, balance the needs of small D states, prevent a single state from driving the early outcome, and reflect population changes.

I understand that NH being first is a huge problem for other voters, but the people of South Carolina don't speak for me either. We're just trading one problem for another.