As we approach the presidential primary season, the news media will increasingly focus on the candidates' movements and actions in the states of Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two primary states. But few pundits are discussing the problem inherent in this coverage: that these two states have, without warrant, been given the first-in-the-nation privilege.
Supporters of the system, specifically party members in early states, have put forth many arguments to defend this preposterous tradition. For example, they argue that if candidates can direct most of their attention to one or two states, they will be allowed to interact with voters and have the ability to get to know individual citizens.
This argument is basically an appeal for personal, on-the-ground, local politics instead of ad-driven, money-backed national politics. There is little doubt that if all the primaries and caucuses were held on the same day, candidates would spend most of their time at huge rallies and fundraising dinners in order to run a nationwide campaign.
But while this argument may adequately dismiss the one-day primary, it does nothing to explain why New Hampshire and Iowa get the special status that no other state receives. A critical investigation shows that there is nothing exceptional about Iowa or New Hampshire that makes them distinctly American or representative of our nation in general. In many ways, both states are quite unrepresentative: They are mostly white, rural, red-leaning states with relatively small populations.
It is clear, therefore, that the primary system requires reform in order to ensure more equal representation for all states in the union. One method of reform would be to pre-assign states various primary dates throughout the spring of an election year, and rotate these assignments every four years. Each state would have to wait two hundred years to be given the special status of first state. But while fair, such a system may strike many as overly confusing and intricate.
A second proposal would divide the nation into four quadrants. Each quadrant would vote together on the first Tuesday of one of four months: February through May of the election year. The regions would rotate months every four years.
Such a schedule would be a compromise maintaining ease and simplicity while ensuring equal importance among states. No state would be given a distinctly special status, but the first of the four quadrants would have a greater impact on the election outcome than the other quadrants.
Undoubtedly, even one-fourth of the United States is a large area in which to campaign, and the face-to-face campaigning that we see today in Iowa and New Hampshire would not occur. Nevertheless, the quadrant system would definitely not prohibit face-to-face campaigning, and at least the candidates would not have to traverse the entire country for a vote on one day.
Who should take the lead in proposing this much-needed reform? Clearly, the presidential candidates can do nothing to effect change, since backing such a proposal would cause them to lose the support they need in Iowa and New Hampshire.
State governments cannot be relied upon either. Iowa and New Hampshire themselves are convinced that they have an inherent right to their early primaries, and will not give up this arrogant perspective easily. Other states are similarly self-interested and will want such status reapplied to them.
The only individuals that can make a significant difference are the national political organizations who control the rules of the primaries for their respective parties.
A change in the system is long overdue, and it is time that party members seriously consider the system outlined above. I don't know about you, but I'm ready for my primary vote to be taken just as seriously as the votes of the residents of Iowa and New Hampshire. Isn't that what a true democracy is all about?
