a) What if this proposal had been in place in 2016?  Who would have won the nomonations?

​There is no way to know.  With these straightforward and transparent rules, different candidates may have run.  With Iowa and New Hampshire not being first, other candidates may have risen to the top in early states.  With later state contests being winner-take-all, decisions to stay in or suspend campaigns likely would be different.  With no negative press about behind-the-scene delegate maneuvers (trying to win the nomination by following the convoluted rules currently in place), voter perceptions of candidates would be different. Thus, there is no way to know who would have emerged. 

What we would know is that the nominees were chosen in an appropriate manner. We would know that the Presidential nomination process is no longer "rigged." 

​

b) What if one of the major parties opposes this proposal?

​The other party should do what is good anyway. The party that wishes to demonstrate respect for its voters (and thus begin to regain credibility in the eyes of the public) will implement this solution.  If either major party opposes this proposal, the best response by the other party will be to demonstrate its integrity by implementing all features of this proposal (except Tuesdays and primaries) through all-day Saturday "caucuses" that are simply conducted in a way that is the closest thing possible to the typical primary voting process.* 

​

c) What if the major parties simply tweak their processes a bit to appear responsive to concerns while actually maneuvering to increase their control?

If they want to increase their control, they should simply do away with the elaborate charade of primaries and caucuses.

​

​

​*  For example, the Republican Party could learn from (and significantly improve upon) its 2016 Kentucky caucus experience to implement a functional, consistent, primary-like system within every state.