California is moving its primary from June to March

[Bob The Knob]

[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/10/california-could-jolt-2020-presidential-elections-242530[/url]
[quote]California is pushing forward with a plan to change the state’s primary date from June to March, a move that could scramble the 2020 presidential nominating contest and swing the early weight of the campaign to the West.

If adopted by the legislature this week — as is widely expected — and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, the early primary would allocate California’s massive haul of delegates just after the nation’s first contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.[/quote]

Huge change, 2020 may just be Win California: The Game

[EmperorScorpious]

Ideally the states should all have their primaries on the same day so one state doesn't get to knock out candidates the rest of the country would possibly want.

[Sgman91]

-Snip due to bad reading-

[Bob The Knob]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52668832]I mean, California is already an auto-win for the democrats. It doesn't really matter when they vote.[/QUOTE]

Make Facepunch Bad Reading Again 2020

[cis.joshb]

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52668843]Make Facepunch Bad Reading Again 2020[/QUOTE]

I like how the Dem sniping algorithm automatically generated the response before the conscious mind had the chance to realize how primary elections work

[BF]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52668827]Ideally the states should all have their primaries on the same day so one state doesn't get to knock out candidates the rest of the country would possibly want.[/QUOTE]

Actually, while a sequential election sounds bad at first glance, it facilitates a highly desirable trait: Presidential nomination in the US greatly tends to facilitate electing a Condorcet winner, because of the sequential election. This is despite FPTP not necessarily electing a Condorcet winner every single time, and so FPTP+sequential elections are better than even AV/IRV for nominating candidates (which also do not guarantee a Condorcet winner).

Source:
Deltas, G., Herrera, H., & Polborn, M. K. (2015). Learning and Coordination in the Presidential Primary System. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(4), 1544-1578.

[Gmod4ever]

[QUOTE=BF;52669855]Actually, while a sequential election sounds bad at first glance, it facilitates a highly desirable trait: Presidential nomination in the US greatly tends to facilitate electing a Condorcet winner, because of the sequential election. This is despite FPTP not necessarily electing a Condorcet winner every single time, and so FPTP+sequential elections are better than even AV/IRV for nominating candidates (which also do not guarantee a Condorcet winner).

Source:
Deltas, G., Herrera, H., & Polborn, M. K. (2015). Learning and Coordination in the Presidential Primary System. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(4), 1544-1578.[/QUOTE]

What the fuck are you doing?

This is Facepunch. We don't cite sources here. Just spout our opinions as if they're objective fact, and then get upset when people dare disagree with them.

[sp]It's an interesting thing you brought up, though. I'd like to see more analyses into this particular issue, personally.[/sp]

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=cis.joshb;52669846]I like how the Dem sniping algorithm automatically generated the response before the conscious mind had the chance to realize how primary elections work[/QUOTE]

well, it's [I]technically[/I] an auto-win for the democrats, a democrat always wins

but...so does every other party

unless they just hate california and don't have delegates there I guess