(Yesterday I made some critical remarks about the DNC’s threat aimed at Florida over the moving of their primary to January. Some discussion ensued and this post is based on a comment that I made in that thread. The criticism apply, btw, to the RNC as well).
This system was not created through a logical process of figuring out the best way (or even a good way) to choose nominees. Rather, it evolved out of a system where the primaries were nothing more than beauty contests (i.e., when the conventions still actually chose the candidates) and candidates didn’t go and campaign the way they do now.
Iowa and New Hampshire have become important because they happened to be first on the calendar when the primaries became a key piece of the nominating puzzle.
For example, Iowa gained much of its mystique because in 1976 it helped to launch Jimmy Carter’s bid for the presidency. This tale is often repeated every four years in the media. Of course, they often fail to note that Carter came in second in that contest to a slate of uncommitted voters. Further, I would note that it was less coming in second in Iowa that launched Carter as much as it was the media coverage that Carter then received.
All the magic, virtue and logic we assign to those contests is pure ex post facto reasoning.
And, if we are old enough, it has “always been that way” and therefore we tend to accept it and our acceptance reinforces the notion that it is the right way to do things.
Still, as I argued the other day, the system itself makes no sense: we allow a narrow slice of voters from two small, unrepresentative states to determine upon whom the national media spotlight will shine (and with it name recognition and donations).
That’s no way to run a railroad. It certainly isn’t the best way to pick nominees.
June 14th, 2024 at 11:06 am
For myself, at least, I’m not arguing that there is no better way to run the primaries — I’m arguing that the current way of doing things is better than having larger states vote first, and that it doesn’t tarnish our electoral system entirely.
Simply because reasoning may be ex post facto does not automatically make it wrong (just as calling someone a left-wing idiot doesn’t make them wrong). Honestly, Dr. Taylor, I respect you greatly and have been reading your blog for a while, but you just seem to have a grudge against Iowa and New Hampshire because they nominate first. No, they are not as special as they seem to think they are, and no, they never did anything to deserve it. But there are valid reasons to have them vote first, and simply because you disagree with those reasons does not make those who don’t out-of-touch or ill-informed, nor are the parties necessarily pandering.
If you must have a demon, it’s probably everyone’s favorite evil political force: the media. All of the real power that IA and NH have is given to them by the parties and by the media. The media, to a great extent, determine the course of any election and greatly influence its outcome. The alternative is for the media spotlight to shine on whomever the media deem appropriate. And, usually, the media deem the frontrunner most appropriate and give them the most airtime, which only reinforces their position. Small, early primaries can change the media attention (and then the polls) to a candidate who has actually received votes from citizens. That just seems like a good thing to me.
Whether or not you like New Hampshire or Iowa, someone must vote first, and whatever state or states do are going to be given pseudo-mythical status by the media. I’m sure you’ll agree that this isn’t the best way to do things, but New Hampshire and Iowa are not devils which are a blight on the American political system. Things would be no different if Kentucky and Hawaii voted first.
June 14th, 2024 at 11:25 am
Patrick,
No, I have no particular grudge against Iowa or New Hampshire. Although I will admit that I find the attitudes of officials in those states that they have a right to be first in this process to be absurd. I honestly don’t see any good reasons why they go first aside from the fact that they always have.
More to the point, however, I have a great deal of dissatisfaction with the current nomination process.
I would argue that we should have a national primary with some sort of run-off provision and do away with this state-by-state nonsense altogether. There is no good democratic (small “d”) reason to privilege one set of voters over all the others.
Even a serious of regional primaries would be better than what we have now.
Heck, even if we have to go state by state, Iowa and its idiosyncratic rules and NH and it highly unrepresentative population aren’t good choices. At least larger states would represent a larger percentage of the overall electorate. Still, as noted above, I think that the state-by-state process ought to be scrapped entirely.
And my apologies if I seemed overly vociferous in a way that seemed to single you out.
In regards to the ex post facto issue–my point was not to accuse you of it, per se, but to point out that we have generically tended to accept that Iowa and NH goes first, and that it is somehow a good thing because of “retail politics” and such. However, I would argue that largely we accept it because it is and by buying into the idea that there really is something valuable about the process we stand in the way of changing it.
The DNC/RNC reticence about changing anything is problematic. And there does seem to be an unhealthy belief that IA and NH have the right to go first.
As I said in the post: the current system was not the result of a great deal of forethought, yet we tend to treat it as sacrosanct.
June 14th, 2024 at 11:28 am
And, to get to the media point, the system dictates largely what the media does, and less the other way around. As such, the culprit here is more the systm than the media. But that is another topic for discussion.
I must confess that I view the media more neutrally than you seem to be doing. I blame the consumers of the media more than I do the media.
Thanks for the comments, btw.
June 14th, 2024 at 12:13 pm
All this talk of change. . .I thought you were a conservative.
(I’m just poking fun so don’t bite my head off)
June 14th, 2024 at 1:32 pm
I am just getting radical in my old age.
June 14th, 2024 at 2:33 pm
At the end of the day, I think you’re right — we absolutely need a new nomination process. I like the idea of smaller states starting, but New Hampshire and Iowa are hardly representative of the United States.
June 14th, 2024 at 5:45 pm
Next thing you know, you’ll be giving up your cell phone. . .okay, that will never happen.