cos

I don't think it really matters which specific month it goes 'til, be it March or June. I do think it's kind of silly to have a schedule with stragglers that vote after the decision is known. I'd like to see a primary calendar that starts with the smallest states, spaced at least two weeks apart, then clumps of small or medium states, and finally one big day with all the large states. It should be designed such that it's entirely possible to reach the final big state day without a clear nominee. That would make it most likely that every state has a meaningful campaign. 2-week or more spacing between voting days is important, I think, so that they don't become follow-ons of previous contests.

As for Michigan and Florida, it turns out that if they'd stayed with their original dates they'd have had much more pull this year. Ironic, huh? Also, the rules merely prevented them from jumping ahead of "Super Tuesday"; they could've joined Super Tuesday at the beginning of February with no penalty. Montana and South Dakota could also, as far as party rules go - the DNC didn't force them to go last.

Part of the problem is that there's no real central authority setting the calendar. The DNC and poke and prod, but each state's party or legislature sets its own dates. This year the DNC tried to use punitive measures to see if it could manage the calendar a little more forcefully, and the result is Florida and Michigan. So another irony: If FL and MI "get away" with it, the DNC's authority and ability to do anything about the primary calendar will be broken and they won't be able to really make it better next time.