but the short of it is... that could be democratic (with a small d of course)

That's not counting DC and the territories.

And that only covers the two major parties, too.

Then you would need 50 state legislatures and 50 governors to go along with it.

Have you ever heard the term "herding cats"?

BTW, I would oppose such a move and would push every elected official representing me to oppose it. Such a foolish move would mean potential candidates who could not immediately raise at least $250 million could never participate. It would be like pumping massive amounts of steroids and amphetamines ginto Citizens United.

but no, no we can't... inspiring...NOT

And thanks for providing some of the excuses.

290 Congressmen, 67 Senators, and 38 states to implement.

I could go for it but the wording of such an amendment would by necessity be so complex it would have difficulty getting enough public support to drive such a difficult political change.

it would save a lot of time and money

Good luck with that.

Never forget that Obama was losing national polls until he had won a few states. Holding the primaries all on the same day gives a huge institutional advantage to the candidate with the most name visibility and ability to front-load resources.

.....the states should draw from a lottery to choose the order, so that it is different every election.

To make sure that demographics do not skew one way or another one cycle to the next.

IIRC, it was Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and South Carolina on one day, followed two weeks later by North Dakota, Rhode Island, Nevada, DC, and Alabama, then two weeks after that by Oregon, Delaware, Arkansas, and West Virginia, then two weeks after that everyone else, or somesuch idea.

The idea is to have a small but diverse group of states test the waters, then see who's left standing.

If, say, California went first, it would be all about who had the money to run ads in SF and LA. That's what we need less of, not more.

and they guard their 'autonomy' jealously/zealously.

So every state would sometimes be first, and make sure each region is represented among the first half dozen primaries every time. You could have Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, Southwest, Rocky Mt. states and Midwest. Media would have to actually focus on issues in every region early on, not natter on about farm issues in Iowa while ignoring urban concerns.

No coin flipping or card drawing either to decide ties - just give half the delegates to each candidate. A president should not be chosen by chance.

Everyone gets to vote, with options for early voting and mail-in voting if you can't make it to polls election day.

Voting all on one day, as you suggest, would mean some states would never see a candidate (little states) and only candidates with a lot of up-front cash could fund campaigns in all or even most states. With my system, they would have to appeal to voters in every region of the country.

I don't like IA and NH's death grips, but I like the idea of a couple of small states (preferably rotating) going first.

They have no national import. They have no state import. Nobody is elected to an office, state, county, city, or national, during a primary.

They are entirely in-house events so that a political party, what amounts to a private organization, can determine who it's going to put forward as their nominee in a real election that produces a winner that matters.

The federal government doesn't control private political parties. (D), (R), (L), Green, or any of the other myriad parties. Each decides how to determine its nominee on its own. They can use a caucus. They can use an election. They can examine the entrails of a goat or go up to the nearest high building and cast dice into tea leaves while examining the clouds. It's entirely up to them and their members.

States get involved as a matter of convenience for the population and pragmatism for some sort of order in the general election. They have the mechanisms in place and many have decided to help out the political parties, provided that they have a sufficient number of members. Why? Because the states are to reflect the will of the populace and because without some sort of infrastructure to handle a private event where 3 million people show up there's a lot of room for disaster--and a disaster can wreak havoc on the real state election in the fall. There's a carrot and a stick, both motivating the state to work with the larger parties.

In some cases the state has a "take it or leave it" attitude--"here's the primary date. Suck it up."

In some cases the state and parties negotiate and come up with a date. Or two dates. Smaller parties have to suck it up and either pick one date or pack up and go it alone.

In some cases the parties have a meeting off to the side and decide without doing more than letting the state know who won by who files their candidacy petition. This is not, by and large, the larger parties.

I'd consider a constitutional amendment to be a violation of the intent of the Constitution. It would have the federal government dictate the manner and time of when a private political group decides who its members, however defined, decide on their candidate. (That this is fuzzied up a bit by the open primary system that the parties often have is immaterial; there are scores and scores of closed primaries, so to speak, but since we're (D) we don't care about smaller, minority parties. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and for the wolves that eat the geese and the slugs that the geese eat.)