In a recent article which I read on National Review, election analyst Michael Barone says of the presidential primary process that “giving eternal first dibs to Iowa and New Hampshire is intellectually indefensible”. On balance, I’m tempted to agree with Barone. This is not to say that Iowans and New Hampshirites don’t make important contributions to the process, but the unwillingness of candidates, campaigns or political parties to acknowledge that these two states should not have a determinative say in the presidential nominating process every single election cycle is somewhat bewildering. Though an argument could be made–on the Republican side–that socially conservative, economically protectionist Iowa and fiscally conservative, socially moderate New Hampshire are smallish swing states that balance one another relatively well, could the same balance not be replicated with, say, Ohio and New Mexico, or Wisconsin and Nevada?
This leads me to the following thought experiment, and I hope all you political science and process junkies out there with me will also appreciate it; if you had the ability to redesign the presidential primary process, from scratch, with relative carte-blanche from the RNC and all state party committees to do so, which states would you pick? Would you privilege deep red states, in order to accurately gauge the feelings of the base, or swing states, in order to appeal to moderates? Would you award delegates proportionally, based on a candidate’s voting percentage in the state, winner-take-all, or let each state decide? How should the relative merits of primaries versus caucuses be accurately weighed? Or, would we be better off with a national primary day?
For what it’s worth, my recommendations are as follows. I think it makes sense for the first four primaries to be, in no particular order, a deep red state, a deep blue state, and two swing states (with vote totals within, say, five points of the national average in at least two of the three most recent elections). It would also make sense for at least one of the first four to be a “large” state–meaning twenty electoral votes at least–but the other three should be “medium” or even “small” states. Regional balance is also key, but I’m not sure how it could best be weighted. I tend to think primaries are better at measuring a candidate’s ability to win a nation-wide election, but that’s a normative judgment, rather than an empirical one. However, I’m extremely skeptical of the idea of a national primary, since the presidential election is, at it’s core, a series of fifty state elections to choose pledged electors, and the primaries should reflect this as well, to a degree. Plus, a national primary would be a poor means of judging a candidate’s retail political abilities, which are advantages conveyed by small state primaries.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Defenses of the IA and NH-dominated primary system we have today? Please post them in the comments section.
April 28th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Let’s not mess with the program just now.
April 28th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I have no problem with NH going first but Iowa should not be the the first in the nation state to vote.
April 28th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
I like Iowa being first.
Actually, I wish the first four states were Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Alabama.
Then move to Montana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina.
We’d get a good candidate then!
April 28th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I would give New Hampshire First in the Nation because it has been as such since before all of us were born (the first NH Primary was in 1916). Iowa on the other hand… it really doesn’t have any more legitmacy than say, Florida or any other state.
April 28th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
National primary. End the stranglehold these handful of voters have on the party. What better way can there be for determining who would do best in a national election?
April 28th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
If a national primary is not an option, at least half the early states need to be big states. Maybe the small states favor those who can engage well in retail politics, but the nature of the general election has changed to the point where retail politics is not how you win. Being able to mobilize a large amount of voters in large states is key to winning the general election. Any system that allows you to get the nomination without testing a candidates ability to do this is inherently flawed.
April 28th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Florida, Arkansas, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, then the rest.
In that order.
Huck/Rubio ’12
April 28th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Regional rotation: (1) western , mid-west, southern, and northeast (different state in each region per cycle); in order of the lowest to highest electoral votes. Any state with less then 10 electoral votes would be winner take all, above 10 would be proportional.
April 28th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
In the early going I prefer small states over larger, because it does help select for good retail politicians, and de-emphasizes loads of money and name ID. I think they can do a better job vetting the candidates.
I have a bias towards rural areas and the Midwest, but that’s based more on my outlook, and upbringing. I like the idea of mixing red, blue, and swing early on. But I DON’T like the idea of large blue states (NY and CA) ever being determinitive. I would put those states- who do us so much damage in the general- at the back of the line.
In defense of IA and NH, I do think the local parties and voters get a little “better” and more sophisticated at vetting, having done it so much. They’re certainly harder to impress than they would be on their first go around.
I prefer proportional allocation above a certain threshold (say, 15%), and primaries in general, with the occasional caucus, to give the extremely committed a greater voice. Some states do both, which has merit.
So if we started a new calander, I think a good start could look something like:
SD, DE, NM (which would be red, blue, purple small states).
then mix in AL, WI, and OR (red, purple, and blue medium states)
etc…. working up towards larger states
Of course, numerically there are more red states than blue, so we’d need to toss more in early, or the early states are skewed blue. But as I mentioned above, I’d put CA, NY, MA, and NJ at the back of the line.
April 28th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
#8 I like that too, especially forcing larger states to be proportional.
April 28th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Why have the same early states every year? We should have a cycle process where different states have opportunities to be first. I’m not liberal by any means, but “equal opportunity” sounds good sometimes…
Oh, and screw Iowa. Why should I care what they think? I hate the early state process.
April 28th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Making large states proportional makes no sense at all. The electoral college is not proportional. The goal should be to nominate the candidate who is the best at representing the views of the party AND has the best chance at getting elected in the general election. The second purpose should not be ignored. I think it is a little ridiculous to suggest that Iowans are better at nominating president’s because they have experience. The winner of the Iowa caucus has not gone on to win the nomination for quite a while. The influence they exert is way more than they deserve.
April 28th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
#11, See 8. That’s why I think it should be 4 states, one from each region of the country that rotates within that region. Each state would have a chance of being 1st in their region at some point and if the order of the 1st four were by the number of electoral votes, the smaller states in the cycle is not going to be ignored since they would set the table like Iowa does now. Likewise, if the smaller states were winner-take-all and the large states were proportional, a state like Utah or Nevada is going to get more equal play as a Texas or New York.
April 28th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
There is nothing wrong with the system we have now. The first 4 states are smaller states that you don’t have to spend a lot of money to compete in.
The problem that I have is the process is so bang bang. In 1980, Reagan was upset in Iowa and trailed by 21 points but the NH primary was 5 weeks after Iowa. Once it gets going there is no time to do any grassroots campaigning and meeting people.
April 28th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Rombot,
“The winner of the Iowa caucus has not gone on to win the nomination for quite a while.”
Ummmmm…. the last two Presidents- one Republican, one Democrat- both won Iowa, and lost New Hampshire in their contested Primaries.
The last Republican to win New Hampshire AND the Presidency was George HW Bush, in 1988. So if you’re interested in WINNING (duh), we should flush New Hampshire first.
April 28th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
I like the idea of a National Primary because it seems the most fair, however, I would like to see a series of national primaries in which the lowest canidate(s) gets knocked off, until a canidate gets a majority. This would give smaller canidates a chance and prevent the field from immediately getting polarized between the top two.
April 28th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
NH first then the other 49 states 2 months later.
April 28th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
John Mark,
Most people can’t be bothered to vote once in a primary. How many times do you expect people to vote?
April 28th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
18, Think about it, the world would be ruled by political junkies. We would rule the world. As fun as this would be, however, I suppose would be to have people name the order of their choices and do the runoff voting automatically. I am only half serious about any of this, there are definite advantages to having a series of states – I just don’t like people’s votes counting for more because of where they live.
April 29th, 2011 at 10:25 am
I thought and hoped this would be a fun discussion, and it has turned out to be.
Re: John Mark’s idea in 19, one thing you could do for primary voting (and this might be worth trying at a statewide level first) would be a single, transferable vote system, otherwise known as ranked preference voting. Basically, voters put down a first, second and third preference. Votes are tallied with first-choice preferences only, and the candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated. The votes of their supporters are then distributed to their second preference, and retallied. This is done until one candidate has a majority. I’m a little skeptical about STV for national elections in a two-party system (it’s currently only used in Ireland and Malta), but I could see the utility in a very crowded primary.