37 Comments - ISPRETIRED - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:43 pm: Not really, the rest of the State cannot overcome Chicago. - Huh? - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:49 pm: Shoving Iowa aside will be difficult. Tradition carries a lot of weight. The Iowa caucuses are first because they don’t actually fill out a ballot. That has been historically New Hampshire. The attempts to cast ballots before New Hampshire have always been defeated. There might be something in their constitution that says they have to be first to cast ballots. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:50 pm: ===will be difficult=== You didn’t answer the question. - Rod - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:54 pm: The last thing we need here is having armies of national political reporters all over Chicago, suburbs, towns like Springfield, and the like searching for stories. It would be good for the national exposure of Illinois based political reporters, good for campaign hired guns, good for local PR consultants, like it has been in Iowa. But the presidential primary’s relevance to local politics seems limited at best. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:55 pm: Agree. We are pretty representative of the country, in terms of racial makeup. Of course we have to clean up corruption, but those who attack us but support the president will have no room to criticize. - Rich Hill - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:57 pm: While I agree with Gov. Pritzker on Illinois’s merits, and I agree that neither Iowa nor New Hampshire should have such influence over national elections, I voted no. I think Michigan has all of the advantages Illinois has for a representative approach to each party’s constituents and also has the advantage for each party of shaping a nominee who will be competitive nationally. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:57 pm: Voted “No” Stated my case. - SpfdNewb - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:02 pm: Voted no, the more I thought about it, the more I am happier other states get to deal with this mess. Now if the question was does the primary and general election season need to be shorter, then I agree. - NIU Grad - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:03 pm: Maybe not first…but being in the first 4-5 I would like to see. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:07 pm: No, but here’s what I would suggest. Group all primaries by region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West) and space them about 3-4 weeks apart. All the Northeast states vote one day, all the Midwest states on the next primary day, etc. Every 4 years, rotate the order so that the same region doesn’t always go first. Maybe try to divide the regions so that they have roughly the same number of delegate votes at stake. That way one state or one region doesn’t have disproportionate influence over the process. - Truthteller - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:11 pm: Changing the order in which states vote would draw attention away from the most perverse feature of the election- allowing a billionaire candidate to use his enormous wealth to purchase the nomination. That’s a bigger problem for democracy than allowing Iowa and N.H. to vote first. - lakeside - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:15 pm: I voted yes - but I think we should rotate first vote locations. We’ve got 50 states; every election 10 states should vote first, on the same day. So every 5 elections, Illinois goes first. - Bourbon Street - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:16 pm: Though I agree with Gov. Pritzker’s analysis, I have to vote “No”. The election season is long enough—no need to prolong the period of time between the primary and the general; Illinois voters don’t run the risk of wasting a vote on candidates that have no chance of winning because the voters can see the trends; there’s a risk that an early February cold snap or blizzard will keep voters home; and NH seems adamant about keeping its status as “first in the nation” primary, so “Illinois first” appears to be pointless. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing Illinois participate in Super Tuesday, but that’s not the question so I’ll shut up about that topic now. - City Zen - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:19 pm: No. North Carolina checks all the same boxes. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:23 pm: Yes. Reporters and candidates and their staff will spend money in Illinois and that will help our economy, especially downstate. - downstateR - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:30 pm: Nope. Reason: Every state thinks they’re special in some way and I suppose they are. I rather like Lakeside’s idea. - allknowingmasterofraccoodom - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:33 pm: Why? So we can highlight all the corruption in our state? Let’s get our collective you-know-what together and then maybe talk. - Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:41 pm: Voted agree. That said, I do not believe on an overall basis that Illinois is representative of the nation, however, I do believe that most of the major components of the nation are represented on a significant basis within the state’s borders. Urban, suburban, small city and rural voters are all well represented in large numbers of each. Minority populations, including African-American, Latino, and Asian, are well represented with fairly large numbers as well. I disagree with the poster who suggested Michigan. I think that state, while purple-ish, is an outlier of sorts given their economic base. North Carolina, also suggested by another, would check a lot of boxes, but might under-represent Latino voters. - Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:45 pm: ===So we can highlight all the corruption in our state?=== If sunshine is the best disinfectant and everybody *really* wants reform, why not? Maybe it would serve as a deterrent if bad folks knew there would be a host of reporters sniffing around. Not to mention, there’d be a temporary economic boost that would go with it. - What's in a name? - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 3:54 pm: Voted Yes, largely because why not. I agree we need to clean up first. More motivation to do the cleaning. I also agree with the concept of rotating regional primaries. That actually makes more sense. - Heyseed - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:08 pm: No. Neither of Illinois’s two political parties is really representative of their respective parties nationwide. And Illinois’s vaunted diversity would probably NOT be reflected by press reports of our primaries. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:11 pm: We’re not a swing state, seems silly. Not saying Iowa should continue being first. Maybe change every couple election cycles to a different swing state. - benniefly2 - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:20 pm: I would prefer not to be constantly inundated with political adds from about a month after the midterm until primary would occur. I voted no. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:24 pm: ===I would prefer not to be constantly inundated with political adds from about a month after the midterm until primary would occur. I voted no.=== Exactly. Not to mention being borderline harassed by organizers for nearly a year. Voted no. - Amalia - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:24 pm: population of the state is reflective of the nation’s percentages. - Token Conservative - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:37 pm: Can you imagine the ward bosses being greased? And how much it would cost a fledgling campaign to get on the air in Chicago? And that a Democrat from one side of the state in no way resembles a Democrat on the other side of the state? No way. - Token Conservative - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:39 pm: ==Yes. Reporters and candidates and their staff will spend money in Illinois and that will help our economy, especially downstate.== No Democrat would set foot south of I-80. - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:49 pm: Voted no. I see no reason to believe that Illinois voters are good at picking leaders. Blogo and Rainer disqualify each party. - Rural Survivor - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 5:21 pm: I voted no. Making the election season longer only increases the need for more money to run a campaign. Don’t we have a plethora of self funded millionaires/billionaires campaigning already. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 5:49 pm: == No Democrat would set foot south of I-80.== Of course they will. Democrats already live and work south of I-80. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 5:51 pm: == Why? So we can highlight all the corruption in our state? == Other states have corruption too, the perpetrators are more likely to get away with it. In Illinois we catch the perpetrators. - SSL - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 5:52 pm: Voted no. Illinois is not a well run state and has an awful reputation across the nation. Do something and show actual results before shooting off your mouth JB. And the something would be to actually decrease the unfunded pension liability and benefits that are growing by billions every year. - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 5:57 pm: For delegates elected by congressional district (2/3 of overall IL delegates) here is the breakdown of each congressional district by percent https://i.imgur.com/lXyT19z.png - Pundent - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 7:48 pm: Voted no. I’d rather see a system where no single state has oversized importance in the primary. I’d rather see common primary states. Let the candidates decide how they want to allocate resources not based on some arbitrary pecking order. - revvedup - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 8:28 pm: Illinois IS more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire, and if you can’t win in a big state, maybe the field of candidates will thin out earlier as well. Iowa Dems are all over the map; wonder what a larger vote would reveal? - BaronvonHammer - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 9:20 pm: The Governor has made an excellent point. Illinois as a State is much more representative of America than most other states, especially Iowa. Making Iowa and New Hampshire is an artificial device. The suggestion to group primaries would be a better approach. - woodguy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 10:24 pm: As the Governor said. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.