Impact of California on nominating process

[fafner]

I would appreciate some input from WACCO's about California's participation in the nomination process for our national leaders. We have a large block of voters who have little, even no impact in this process.

The political parties, Democratic in particular, are in the habit of visiting California for their fundraising efforts. That's fine. I have no problem with that and I have read that California is referred to as a cash cow. Republicans can do the same, yet, there is very little in the way of buying political ads or campaigning in this state, and it appears that California has very little impact on the nomination process. It is pretty well decided by the time we are allowed to vote to nominate. When the general election rolls around, California does play an important role due to our large number of electoral college votes.

What changes can be made to make California more involved in the nomination process?

[jbox]

I would appreciate some input from WACCO's about California's participation in the nomination process for our national leaders....What changes can be made to make California more involved in the nomination process?

Yes, I agree, Fafner. California is the largest state in the union in terms of population and is an innovative leader, nationally and worldwide, like it or not, on societal change. Think air pollution or smoking in restaurants. But we take a back seat, or maybe even the rumble seat, to places like Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina, in terms of nominating our President. There was a plan afoot maybe 20 or 25 years ago to move up California's primary from June to February. Does anyone know what happened to that very good idea?