As a resident of California, I was sold on the idea of moving our primary up to Super Tuesday so our votes would not be victims of statistical insignificance. Unfortunately, we're left in a situation now with the democratic primary where we have to wait out the remainder of the season on the sidelines as the campaigning drama unfolds, helpless to intervene, praying on the mercy of the ‘super-delegates' as the race gets tighter.

In a primary race such as this, California's position is a great representation of how both arguments for and against an early election play out. On the democrat side, a large state like California would have been well poised to exert a lot of influence and herald the christening of the candidate into the general election, if our primary were held later in the season. The candidates would probably have spent more time and money in the state, and perhaps better internalized some of the issues that are important to Californians. As for the republican primary, however, if our election were to be held later, we would most likely be in that familiar place of casting insignificant votes in a foregone race.

Though maybe the problem isn't a question of where we fit into the campaign schedule, but the schedule itself. The primary season is long - too long. Candidates spend inordinate amounts of money, and expend so much energy damaging the credibility of their party peers, that there's no way the crowned candidate can enter the general election undamaged. There needs to be a balance wherein candidates can campaign across the country, spending sufficient time to try to understand regional issues and connect with potential voters, but not drag the season out so long so as to come up against some of these challenges. It is destructive to the candidates, it is costly, and it engenders campaign fatigue.