From the length of the campaign season, to voter suppression, to scheduling elections on Tuesdays, to suspect voting machines, to the Citizens United decision...wait a minute: is there ANY part of our elections system that actually functions well?
572
@jrw
Where I live in Arizona, we have all mail-in ballots. So it's all on paper, and you can mail it in at your convenience. We could move elections to Saturdays, but with so many people in the gig economy and working multiple jobs, any day of the week can be a problem to get to a polling place. And polling places mean having to deal with electronic voting machines that could be subject to hacking and probably leave no paper trail. Mail-in ballots are the way to go for the foreseeable future.
43
@jrw - wait a minute yourself; the part that functions well is the successful transition of a peaceful change of governments for the last 240 plus years. not many - if any - countries can match that jrw.
4
@Blue Moon California also allows anyone to mail in a paper ballot and many people do.
9
The idea that the white majority makeup of Iowa and New Hampshire creates an advantage for white candidates makes sense in theory but does not apply to this election cycle considering none of the minority candidates ever polled at the top with minority voters.
To assume minorities are unable to look past race and towards policy displays the authors own implied biases and ignores the facts that by all accounts Kamala, Corey and Castro ran underwhelming (to say the least) campaigns.
Poll after poll has shown that the overwhelming majority of minority voters divided between Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Three candidates that have been on every debate stage. Guess the system does work after all.
16
The only way to make primaries both practical and fair is too hold a national primary voting day-the same way we hold elections-except the ballot should allow for ranked choice voting. Of course this national voting day should also allow for early voting and mail in ballots so that people who are not able to make it to the polls that day are still able to.This simplifies the process and encourages participation by making primaries more easily accessible. Ranked choice voting also allows people to express their views on all of the candidates.
807
@Sam
I would go so far as to eliminate the primaries and Electoral College altogether. Have a single general election with the top 10 candidates overall from all parties (based on polling data) and use ranked-choice voting. Do away with Citizens United and dark money in politics. Allow candidates a campaign period of two months tops. Move to paper ballots. Ensure that voters cannot have their registrations arbitrarily cancelled. Streamline the process to make it as egalitarian as possible.
574
@Sam The problem with a national primary is that it gives an enormous advantage to establishment candidates who can afford the enormous cost of national advertising. Starting with smaller states allows other candidates to build support over time.
87
@sam
It also ensures that only the candidates with the very deepest of pockets have a chance to compete.
20
Its absurd that my vote in NY essentially has no bearing on the DNC primary process while Iowa and New Hampshire can have massive effects on the eventual candidate. Being in NY I'm used to my vote counting for nothing but it still hurts. Perhaps this is why so many people are disillusioned with the political process in the country. The vast majority of people have a tenth of the say that voters in rural white states do. I understand its how this country was created but something needs to change. In an effort to protect against the majority ruling over the minorities the reverse has happened. A small minority of peoples interests are placed above the vast majority in this country.
667
Big states have a problem where local candidates do not want to push up the date too early. I suspect the real reason Iowa does a caucus is it’s cheaper. Get a bunch of volunteers, use publicly owned rooms and hand out paper. Count votes on a clipboard. Big states have tens of thousands of locations, many machines and lots of expenses. You always have run offs for local races meaning more expenses. Texas went Super Tuesday this time, but it won’t go any earlier. I expect NY, CA, FL and PA could not go earlier for same reasons. You have to find small states with minority populations. Most candidates can’t afford big state media at that stage. Are there any outside the South? Maybe NV, but since they go in June, I doubt they care about being early. Somehow I doubt the DNC would be enthralled with having a group,of southern states as its winnowing states. It now has IA, then NH and then SC. That arrangement may be for the best.
5
@SU
Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states. New York is not.
Therefore, they ought to play a bigger role in the primary than New York.
Blame the Electoral College and winner-takes all.
9
@SU
The Great Compromise does not indeed look so great anymore.
McConnell's state as as many people as Los Angeles alone.
The senators from Wyoming represent five hundred thousand people; senators from California represent thirty-nine and a half million.
Throw in the electoral college, voter suppression, electronic hacking, and Citizens United=
Tyranny of the minority.
52
One set of my grandparents were from Iowa.
A mix of Native American and European American.
Hard working, decent people who made their living
on a farm.
America was a better place then.
I rather have farmers voting first than all those
hip urbanites who do, what exactly, for America ?
Next-time pick five states who's overall profile fits
America as a whole for the first primary, then do
likewise for the next.
In the meantime, watch as the Media goes after any
Candidate who does not finish in the top half of each primary:
Why are you still in the race, do you think you are splitting the
progressive vote, why not unite by one of the leaders ?
Until only two are left and then the media will tell the 2nd
place candidate they must, must, must and should get out
of the race as they are only hurting the party.
And by April we will have one candidate and there will still
be primaries to be voted in but the media will have decided
the nominee is whomever they liked the most.
4
I believe the hip urbanites are working in areas that produce a huge portion of the funds for the farmer’s subsidies.
35
I am an older white person who lives in New Hampshire. I live in the state capital, and I probably see less than 10 people of color a week. I totally agree that we should not be the first to vote. I have two twenty-something daughters who live in NYC, who will be living a lot more of the future than I will be. I don't think it is right that my vote outweighs the two of them together.
484
@December
That's why SC and NV are among the four early states: for African-American and Hispanic voters, respectively. (Iowa is for rural and NH is for suburban -- two other important voting blocks.)
5
@December
Thank you for saying this.
6
@December How about one year out, a drawing occurs similar to those lottery machines with numbered balls that get blown up. This could decide in random fashion which states go in which order. That would seem fair to me.
3
I live in Iowa, and will say with certainty that this caucus is a terrible process for democracy! It happens at 7pm on a cold Feb. night, and can last for 3-4 hours. So many people are not able to vote. All those who are working, for example, at hospitals, care centers, retail, and restaurants. It is also hard for working parents who would need to hire a sitter (imagine the stress on low-income families), and for the disabled and elderly to devote this kind of time. As a result only a small percentage of registered voters actually participate.
Why in the world anyone thinks this mostly white state and this stupid process for vote gathering should have such an impact on the fate of political candidates is beyond me. Please - someone - change this!
289
@Jade Angelica YES YES Yes!!
7
@Jade Angelica As an ex-Iowan, I agree. I participated in many Demoratic caucuses that were filled with Republicans (who had switched their registrations to Dem and then changed back to Republican for the main election) who came to try to manipulate the vote toward the candidate they felt the Rs could beat in the election.
It's not a fair or effective process and truly doesn't represent very many Iowans...only those that have an entire evening to debate the candidates and narrow the field to one.
And, no...most Iowans don't want to venture out on a work-night in February when it's possibly below zero or blizzarding.
14
@CatKat - It didn't occur to me that Republicans would change registration affiliation to vote in IA Dem. caucus. But it should have, because in 2000 I registered as a Republican when I was living in Maine to cast an anti-Bush vote in the primary for John McCain. Oh how the world would have been different if McCain or Gore had been elected in 2000.
6
Electoral college has to go. America has one of the most unethical voting systems in the world. Look at the Senate, compare senators with popular vote. Gerrymandering.
3
Is this an anti-Iowa first argument or anti-Sanders argument in disguise?
3
Make the earliest date chosen by any be primary day for all states.
1
While the argument that neither NH nor Iowa are demographically representative of the US is reasonable, the reason that Booker, Castro, Harris, O'Rourke et al are out of the race is because they failed to gain adequate financial support from the entire US; Buttigieg has remained in the race because he has received much funding from the rest of the country. If financial backers pull away from supporting candidates who do not do well in either of these 2 states, it is their fault for placing too much emphasis on the results. If candidates can not create a message that resonates with voters across the country, then winning Iowa or NH is immaterial. It is the money in politics and the perceptions of donors that matter. Maybe, if a candidate could only raise money locally leading up to that state's primary and only use this locally raised money to pay for activities in that state, then the argument that NH and Iowa have an out sized influence would carry more weight.
This is a worn out opinion piece. Same thing gets written 4011 times every election cycle. Zero for originality.
So the system is flawed. Well, duh. And the flaws go well beyond Iowa and New Hampshire going first. Are we "fixing" everything, or just this?
Giving smaller states more influence in the process is a logical and fair check-and-balance on larger states having more influence on election day. The most equitable system would be going in reverse order by electoral votes. I'm not going to spell it all out here...but it would make a lot of sense.
In the meantime, Iowa and New Hampshire are going to relish having super-sized influence and are going to fight like heck to keep it. To do otherwise would be un-American. You gotta fight, for the right, to caaaauuuucus!
4
I fully agree that Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't go first any more but dispute that their demographics forced Kamala Harris and Corey Booker out. Harris had a great beginning but as the NYT pointed out, her campaign fell apart largely because she had both her sister and Senate campaign manager quibbling over power when critical decisions needed to be made. Booker entered the campaign much too late.
Why should it matter for Democrats if Republicans won't go along (of COURSE they won't!).
Dems should run their primary the way that serves Dems the best. It's fine to hear and consider the contrary views of IA and NH officials and other muckety-mucks, but at some point (which has now been reached) the weight of the argument to change becomes too great to deny. Just do it.
Let the Repubs struggle with their own "it's always been done this way" stubbornness. It hurts there cause, and so much the better.
2
What this country needs is to move forward and not back into a time that doesn't exist. We are evolving and it will continue even if older white people don't like it, it will happen. We should be focused on being ahead of the curve and moving into the future in order to be competitive with other countries. We are sliding back on everything due to one man concentrating on oil and coal and not the climate oh and also lining his own pockets. We need a candidate that works for all Americans. Democrats want to govern and the GOP simply wants control. I'd like to see a female president because we've always had male ones and we know what that's been like for about 200 years. Let's bring diversity to the table and make incredible changes. Men are offering the same as last time. One person one vote is how the presidential elections should be.
5
Frankly, as I get older, I find myself thoroughly disgusted with the piecemeal, state by state primary system the Americans have evolved. It strikes me as contrived, now, to extract maximum expenditure out of the process. It is a pure marketing effort, and doesn't even discover all that much new policy, or rather, policy promise, detail. Why on earth can't it be coordinated nationwide, over several days, and several rounds of voting, as necessary? Who said that the good people of Florida have any reason to know what the good people of Nebraska, or even Connecticut, think? And could you ditch that slavery-driven electoral college? Just please don't trumpet and bray at me about how the USA is the worlds greatest democracy, let alone Nation. A discouraged ex-pat...
14
Have a lottery to pick which states go when. That is fair, although I doubt that there is an easy way to make that happen.
5
Harris and Booker did not drop out because their color disqualified them in Iowa.
They dropped out because their views and policies disqualified them everywhere. Biden was leading Harris in California and South Carolina.
It is equally paternalistic to apply the Obama factor to every candidate of color, that because Obama did it, then it means something is wrong today with white America because Harris and Booker can't do it rather than look at what is wrong with Harris and Booker that made them unacceptable to voters of color.
3
@Paul Harris and Booker dropped out because they hadn’t raised sufficient funds. Since our elections are won on funds, and not on merits, especially since the Roberts’ Court laughable decision on Citizens United, it’s about the money. Your definition of paternalism is unfathomable.
6
One, universal national primary day. Done.
12
Iowa is a relatively inexpensive place to operate a campaign. Even a comparatively unknown can run a low budget operation and do well. The debates are based on national polling, Iowans opinions don’t count more than anyone’s.
3
As long as the subject is about the nature of the presidential primaries, isn't about time to do away with caucuses as a means of selecting delegates to conventions. There are plenty of people that can't participate in these events because of the nature of there lives. I don't know that Iowa and New Hampshire consider themselves better than other states in the primary process. I do know they would miss the money that comes flowing into their states from campaigns and media operations because they are the first. Some form of regional rotating primaries would work and still allow the candidate's organizations the ability to function without having to hop back and forth across the country chasing after the next state to vote.
2
What happens if a large state controlled by Democrats, like New York or California, passes a law requiring its primary to occur on the same day as the first Iowa caucus, or the New Hampshire primary?
3
“ Obviously, politicians in Iowa and New Hampshire will fight any such change, as they always have. They’ll use lofty language, about how solemnly they take their responsibilities and how the current system allows the voices of ordinary citizens to be heard. Strip away the rhetoric, though, and their argument comes down to this: We’re better than the rest of you, and we deserve special treatment forever.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
6
Does anyone even understand the Iowa system? When we start having open primaries and get rid of the electoral college I'll start believing in 'one man, one vote'.
4
Early in his column David makes a strong case for states other than Iowa and NH to go first:
"A typical voter in Iowa or New Hampshire has up to 20 times more influence than somebody in later-voting states, one study found. Sometimes, the two states have turned a parochial issue (ethanol) into a national priority. Local hotels, restaurants, pollsters and television and radio stations have received millions of dollars in extra business."
That's a strong economic argument. To say they are "among the country's whitest states" is not a strong argument. Here in Iowa (where I'm not particularly biased--I'd like to share the privilege with other states), we are not a "white" state.
That is the kind of racism that Democrats and liberals need to flee from, the kind of over-generalization and identity politics that repulses most Americans. We have about 5% minority population and we're arguably less racist than many other states. We do not deserve to be profiled for our racial makeup. Nor does the older demographic curve deserve any labeling that disqualifies Iowa to be the first state.
5
What I wish they would do is divide the states into 5 groups of 10, each of which has representation from different areas of the country and different demographic makeups, and different population sizes. Then have those 5 groups each vote once/month towards the end of Jan-May, and cycle the groups so each goes first and each goes last every 5 elections.
3
This article is months (and years) overdue. The system should have been reformed after 2018 at least.
5
Yet Iowa brought us a black candidate twice, a Latino (Ted Cruz), and a black nominee twice--the first time when there was no national appetite for his candidacy until Iowa. Buttigieg is doing well in Iowa, the third state that ratified same-sex marriage. The "non-representational" argument doesn't hold up when you look at the actual results of the present method, at least in Iowa.
Also, the scale of the Iowa campaign is a great advantage for new and not well-connected candidates. I believe that Harris, who did do well initially, and Castro dropped out this year because they couldn't break through the massive crowd crowd of candidates. Ironically, a small state would not break through the crowd of mega-states if the 1st status were moved to a larger demographic. Do you think anyone would care what the "non-representatives" would think if the first state were New York, Texas, Florida or California? There is a definite justice to beginning with smaller states where you make the case on the ground, speaking to people directly, and finding them where they live. It is a testing ground, and it actually has a good democratic effect on the outcome, it appears.
The shallow arguments presented in this article and in some of the comments here seem more to indicate that perhaps this year, the apparent outcome isn't suiting some...
5
@May
At the end of the article, Leonhardt actually suggests keeping the first two primaries in small states and even suggests some that have more similar population make-ups to the rest of the country (Mississippi, New Mexico, etc).
Also, you have presented the most shallow message of all, they chose a black candidate so they can't be racist, which is not the deepest of arguments. Very few voters in Iowa know what it is like to be systemically plotted against via the police, school-to-prison pipeline, and lack of affordable, quality housing. Voters of color deserve to have their voices heard in the primaries too and if we keep the first primaries in two extremely white states, they never will be heard.
2
Speaking as a New Hampshire resident, I'm happy to cede our early status to other states. I expect other voters feel the same - it's just our politicians and businesses who like the status, attention and money it funnels our way.
5
Have all the primaries and caucuses on the same day. Every voter will have the same influence. As it should be.
5
Please some other state, take this spectacle away. I’m so sick of the constant ads (going on six months now) and the canvassers knocking on my door waking up our baby.
4
If being small, white and old are the criteria, Maine should certainly be added to the first group.
While the entire process is deeply flawed, the attempt to label it a form of "white privilege" is further evidence of the absurdity of the Progressive/liberal press/party. First, 76% of the US population is white while Iowa is actually only 65% white. Second, why is race the determinant of equity in decision making. As a bi-racial, first-generation American, atheist, full-throated capitalist, 50-something cis-presenting male, with a high income, college+, I see far more nuance in the world than everything about race and grievance politics. The party system is terrible, the primaries a manufactured, party-controlled, deeply flawed system that is no more legitimate than the electoral college. However, if you want to revise it, then reform it for building a better mouse trap instead of pandering to a race based world
25
This is such a worthy article and it needs to be continually pointed out until something is done to rectify the situation.
This outdated system helps to feed the growing feelings of frustration and anger by those of us who live in the totally neglected states. It's hard to feel part of a government in which we get so little say about things.
Even if Iowa and New Hampshire get upset, perhaps we should risk their wrath, and make the changes that will allow the rest of us to participate. We should change the rules so that the rest of the country has at least as much say in electing our nominee as they do.
The small number of voters in these two state for too long have had an out-sized say on things, so now it's time to balance out our system and have more representation.
3
Excellent article! If we can reform the process, perhaps getting rid of caucuses and the Electoral College as relics of old, I would like to have a national election process of paper ballots sent to all voters AND a voting deadline on the same day in all states. Open and fair elections for all voters. It’s time to get rid of the rules that were created to benefit some at the expense of all.
4
Have four regional primaries one week apart, through the month of March. Could do the northeast, southeast, midwest, and west. That would hold down travel and ensure each region, if not each state, got its share of attention.
1
Leonhardt's essay shows the kind of rational, sensible thinking that hardly exists any more. It is like finding a dozen lady slippers in a patch of woods where no lady slippers have been seen for a generation, it is like opening a jewelry box filled with glass trinkets and finding a hand-whittled wooden clothespin. It is packed with good sense--and we need good sense as we have never needed it before.
4
The system gives voice to older white rural Christians in the Senate, the Electoral College, and the primaries. The reasons against it are well stated in the article. The reason to keep it as is is that it creates evolutionary change, not revolutionary change, so we all can slowly absorb the constant change that is America.
1
The Democrats need to overhaul their entire primary process. First they need to do away with caucuses...every last one of them. In 2016, most of Sander's delegates came from caucuses because his youthful supporters thronged to the sites. They discriminate against older people, people who are working and people with disabilities. They're horrendous.
Then they need to get rid of the so called super delegates, simply because of the back room old style politics they represent.
And then they need to stop with the Iowa/Nebraska first in the nation votes. They can rotate the first states to vote and demand that the first states represent the make up of the Country as a whole.
California has a over 10% of the Country's entire population and is as diverse as any other State. They should not end up in a non-decisive role ...one that the candidates take for granted and pretty much ignore.
The Democrats have known for quite some time that they have real flaws in their system...so WHY has it taken them so long to address it? They must address it NOW.
5
Yes. DL is right. But the media also are to blame. They should emphasize the importance of national polls and stop exaggerating the relevance of Iowa and New Hampshire.
4
The states with the largest populations should go first. Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent me.
2
@Stanley I think your State has its say in other ways, including having over 12 percent of the elected officials in the US House of Representatives [versus Iowa and New Hampshire having less than one percent each]. So, I think not being able to pick a Presidential candidate a whole month earlier than you do doesn't seem patently unfair.
Here’s another case where the free market will ultimately sink a monopoly. No matter how smart and conscientious Iowans can be there’s no good rationale for the time and money spent there by the political parties - and the media. I’m not a fan of billionaire buying elections, but if Steyer (unlikely) or Bloomberg make a real charge off the back of advertising in later primary states, Iowa’s domination of the entire first year of the presidential campaign will be finished.
Maryland would be an deal state to hold the first presidential primary. The state is
* racially diverse
*religiously diverse
* numerous urban areas
* plenty of suburbs
* large number of well educated professionals
* large number of blue collar people
* sizable number of young voters
* large number of retirees etc..
* not too large
* no too small
The state would probably be an accurate assessment of how much of the nation would vote. For the record, I am not from Maryland nor do Ive in Maryland. I am just providing common sense.
3
Preach on, David! You are right, of course.
If we're going to have two small states start first, how 'bout rather than Iowa and New Hampshire, we start with Delaware and Nevada? The former is a lot more African American than the nation as a whole, and the latter over-represents the Latinx/Hispanic population. Moreover, combined they both have relatively large-sized Asian populations. The few candidates who survive these two states will likely represent the minority-dominated Democratic Party as a whole fairly well. For the same reason, New Mexico and Hawaii would also represent better choices to lead off than Iowa and New Hampshire, if we are committed to the little-guys-start-the-process idea.
Or, better yet, junk the whole idea of going to each state more or less sequentially over an unnecessarily prolonged time period, and go to a national primary day (no caucuses, please). That would absolutely guarantee that the average Democrat is fairly represented in the primaries.
1
Julian Castro made an excellent point re: the struggle non white candidates have in these two states; the deck is stacked. I like the idea of a rotating system every 4 years where the first states up on one cycle rotate to the back on the next. Kind of like a mobius strip of states; always flowing around but with a definite line of demarcation of first and last.
1
@Elex Tenney Barack Obama and Ted Cruz both won caucuses in Iowa … so what changed to cause the deck to be stacked against Julian Castro?
1
The GOP solution would be to have an earlier caucus in...say, Wyoming because its one of the bigger states (by landmass). As if land votes, not people. All those ordinary people can be heard...
Bloomberg has calculated the early primary (and caucus) states correctly: they will make very little difference outside of the media introductions of the candidates. He is smart enough to wait until the 'Super (duper)" Tuesday with South Carolina.
Are these marginal states? No, because any support strength comes from repeated press coverage.
I wait for a one-on-one debate between Biden and Bloomberg; both have workable ideas and are capable of trouncing Trump in the general election.
Hopefully the nominating convention this summer generates the electoral support a Democratic candidate needs.
NO single state should go first ALL the time. Period.
4
Interestingly enough, the lily white Iowa, launched Obama's campaign, over Biden and Clinton. So I'm not sure that race has too much to do with Iowa's choice.
2
Hello? Press? Why are YOU devoting so much coverage to Iowa and New Hampshire? News of the primaries in these insignificant states should appear on page 9.
2
Just go back to smoke filled rooms then. It seem to work in the old days. For sure Trump would never have emerged
2
If all the ills of society are always white privilege white privilege white privilege, then why, out of a field of over two dozen Dem candidates, there are only white candidates left?
Is the Left racist? According to Leonhardt, it's obvious the Left is racist. White Privilege!
3
The process works out as it should. It starts with mostly white Iowa. Proceeds to a very independent New Hampshire that absolutely demands retail politics. Moves on to a large black population in South Carolina. Concludes in Nevada with its huge service industry and large Latino population.
I would sooner this broad and diverse coalition of states help choose the front runner than I would hand it over to CA, NY, TX, and FL.
Besides, Super Tuesday looms right around the coner and that is when the eventual nominee will likely be decided.
2
The media created the myth of the importance of the Iowa Caucus going back to McGovern's victory in 1972, so I guess it is the media that must dismantle it going forward. The best way to kill it: stop covering it.
@hawkeyeui93
I thought that 76 and carter was the first big year for Iowa?
@Lefthalfbach Although I am a native Iowan born in 1970 [and thus cannot tell you this from my memory], it is my understanding that Iowa became the first state starting in 1972.
I'm hoping that the Bloomberg money combined with super Tuesday will blow this whole early nonsense out of the water. I think the issue is not so much the whiteness of the voters, but the paucity of the voters and the fact that they don't represent the larger population of the US since they don't contain any large cities. THAT is the lack of diversity that concerns me more.
1
Agreed. I have never missed an election — on any level— since my first in 1988. I am engaged in my community, but I would not be able to commit to the bizarre caucus marathons. Anymore, few can.
The amount of attention given to Iowa is ludicrous.
How many people can immediately tell you what Republican won Iowa in 2016?
When you know the answer, you'll see exactly how meaningless this puffed-up gathering of a tiny number of people is.
When you stop to think about it, it is entirely possible that at least half of the Republicans who have won Presidential elections in the last 50 years might have lost to a Democratic nominee who never really got past Iowa and New Hampshire.
Only three candidates since 1972 have won a contested Iowa caucus and gone on to win the presidency, and only two were Democrats (Jimmy Carter and Obama. George W. Bush won the Republican caucus. Fifteen others have won Iowa's caucuses and either didn't get nominated or lost the Presidential election.
So why Iowa first? Especially nowadays?
2
I could not agree with you more David. California used to be ignored every year -- the most populous (and likely diverse) state in the country - because our primary was in June. Now that it has moved up we get more "attention."
1
The ten states that pay more into the tax coffers of the federal government than they get back from the federal government should go first. The donor states (those that pay more than they get back) should be lead by California. New York should go second. Why do the dead beat states that rely on the tax dollars from the donor states have primaries before any of the donor states? Trump's embrace of Paul Ryan's tax cut plan punishes taxpayers from the donor states by limiting state and local taxes paid. It's time for the donor states to control the ebb and flow of primary seasons.
1
I think whatever the system or whichever states you choose, no one will be happy. I lived in Iowa for many years. Caucuses are clumsy but you do learn firsthand why your neighbors like a certain candidate and everyone has a voice.
There is no replacement for meeting the candidates one-on-one which is much easier in a small state. I remember meeting John Edwards and just got a creepy feeling from him. Sure enough, my reaction was accurate. Do we really want just more advertising to help decide the candidate which is more likely to happen in a larger state?
1
I've lived in New York, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Virginia, and now New Hampshire. No the good people here do not take more care than citizens of other states in selecting candidates. Sure, the process is fun for those who live in New Hampshire. Other years I've met people like John Kerry, stood about 15 feet from the Clintons at a rally, and even bowled a few frames with Bill Richardson. But I've never gotten over the fact that my vote was not given even remotely the same level of importance in my prior states of residence. It must come to an end.
2
The real question is why people pay any attention to what these two states think. Neither is an important center of anything. Why should they have undue influence?
Just because they say they have to be first doesn't give them the right. The US has a much too long process. There should be a federal law shortening the campaigning to 6 months and everyone can vote for candidates on the same day. Our current president has been campaigning since the last election. Our system is really stupid. Other democracies get elections over in a few months.
3
"Klobuchar is widely viewed as the electable option for Democrats, while voters grapple with far-left policies like Sanders' Medicare for All or tuition-free college" is the NYT mantra.
Beware: "Electable" is corporate-media newspeak for subservient and nonthreatening to the corporate donor class that owns both major parties. And "widely viewed"--in the anonymous passive voice, of course--means "as viewed by the political/media elites" (your view as an ordinary citizen who puts Sanders at the top of all the polls doesn't count, of course).
After weeks of dogged pro-Klobuchar puffery from the corporate propaganda agencies, including the NYT, this brittle, charmless mouthpiece for giant corporations registers no higher than 4 percent in any national poll; in the latest Economist/YouGov poll, she is only one point ahead of Tulsi Gabbard nationally and in several New Hampshire polls tied with Gabbard in that state or only one point ahead. Yet Klobuchar is hailed as the Great White Hope while Gabbard remains an official nonperson, excluded from the CNN New Hampshire town halls even though nonentities polling far behind her there are included. The desperation of these corporate liars and sophists is cause for great encouragement, in my view.
3
Whenever opinion writers at NYT feel lazy they just dust off the "Iowa and New Hampshire aren't representative" column they write every four years. Other than to the Dem and Repub party leaders, being first doesn't matter that much to Iowans. It is a little rich, however, having NYT tell us where "representative" America does and doesn't reside. DL's ignorance of the state is so evident--metro population of Des Moines in 2019 is nearly 700,000 and economy is driven more by publishing, insurance and state government than ag. But wind-swept prairie and cornfields fit the NYT narrative better.
6
How about some facts that are glaringly absent from this piece? Since 1972 only 3 Iowa caucus winners have gone on to become president: Carter, Bush, Obama.
Gosh. Out of three, that Iowan White Privilege gave us the Unites States first black president.
Like most pieces from The New York Times, when run up against the facts, they fail miserably.
2
'The current system is a form of white privilege '
Obviously stupid statement, deserves no particular comment.
But I will underline that the anti-white hysteria on the pages of NYT is reaching dangerous highs. Whites are guilty of all things happening, whatever 'opinion writers' of NYT do not like, they blame whites. Enough, really!
On this particular matter, only in the present time of mass-media (liberal) terror the minuscule population of IA and NH may play any role. In normal times, the show would go on unperturbed but the media insists that IA votes mean a lot (which they absolutely don't), and the author here does not like what he sees as a likely outcome so, no surprise, it is all those ugly whites ...
1
So correct
1
This New Yorker has never been to Iowa...But for some reason I’ve always had an abiding belief in the reasonableness and intelligence of the folks in Iowa…I do see Iowans as quintessential Americans much more so than the denizens of my own neighborhood between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues...including myself
3
We don't think we're better than anybody else. We've simply got a hold of this and don't intend to let go without a fight. As you note, it is a boon for the Iowa economy and that's a big thing, since hardly anyone comes to Iowa strictly for tourism. The two parties can revise the system any time they want, but are too timid to do so. The fault is theirs, not ours.
1
To me the main justification for the primary process being one where certain voters arbitrarily matter more than others based on what state they live in, which in turn shakes out in a way that disproportionately favors white and rural voters, is that the general election process is *also* one where certain voters arbitrarily matter more than others that shakes out in a way that disproportionately favors white and rural voters. If the objective of the primary is to produce a nominee that has the best chance of winning the general, the current one is pretty logical.
To be honest, the most "fair" system would probably be one where how much a state matters is inversely proportional to how much of a say its Democrats have in the federal government otherwise. So solid red states and solid blue states (particularly high-population ones where the Senate gives them proportionately less power) would go first and the more swing-ey states would go last.
All of that said, I'm going to guess that you could swap IA/NH with any other two states (so long as they made up <5% of the delegate total, obviously having CA/NY go first would change a lot) and neither this nor any of the last few primaries would have ended any differently.
Please stop with the white privilege baloney. Race had nothing to do with Iowa and New Hampshire being the first states to act in the nominating process. The problem with Iowa and New Hampshire (and South Carolina and Nevada) is a problem with the entire presidential nominating process. There should be a national primary (no caucuses) in April or May, and a run-off primary if needed in one month. Then party conventions during the summer. That way, all the candidates have to pay attention to the entire country and not a few small states that get out-size attention.
3
The fact that two states go first every time is so plainly and obviously unfair that you don't need to invoke white privilege, male privilege, or any other privilege. Even if the racial makeup of these two states was representative of the US in general, the system would still be unfair.
2
Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the country's demographics any longer. For that alone they should not go first. It is not in the Constitution nor written in fire and brimstone. So let all states go into the primaries on a national voting day. Even if the candidates cannot be in 50 states at the same time. That also would prevent the candidates from pressuring the citizenry.
1
New York is effectively a one-party state. It is placed on the Blue Column before voting even starts. Therefore it is taken for granted by the politicians. The Electoral College further diminished its impact because even if the vote were unanimous for a certain candidate, the electoral votes are the same. Instead of striving for more diversity of political opinion in the State, the push seems to be for the elimination of the Electoral College, which would require a constitutional amendment and is not likely ever to happen.
Why not a series of rolling, regional primaries? Let New England vote first. Two weeks later, the Mid-Alantic states, then the old confederacy, the Mid-west, and so forth. Each region has a mix of blue, red and purple areas within it, so its results would be both representative and instructive to voters in the following regions. The limited geographical area makes campaigning easier. In between each primary day, hold a debate.
The best arguments in favor of small state retail politics primaries are Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. Steyer is a blip in Iowa because all the other candidates have been able to compete there on more or less equal footing. On the other hand Steyer is polling 2nd behind Joe Biden in South Carolina due to TV advertising spending that is ten times what all the other candidates have spent combined. Although Steyer won't end up 2nd come primary day in SC, he shouldn't even be part of the conversation. That's not even to mention the fact that Steyer purchased his place on the last the debate stage...but that's a different problem....
It's ridiculous how much oxygen Iowa and New Hampshire suck up in the primaries. Regular Democrats in other states have virtually no say in who their candidate will be. The only way they can have even the slightest influence is through donations to fund outreach efforts in those caucus states.
I don't know about you, but I find it insulting having to fork over $20 to $40 just to hire more campaign aides to travel to some podunk farm state and convince the native inhabitants there (who generally have NOTHING in common with you) to somehow vote in YOUR interest, not theirs.
It's undemocratic.
Why don't we just get rid of this arcaic system. They are not democratic, in the sense that a vote in Iowa is more valuable than a vote in NY. Why not jus having a general election, all states voting the same day and each vote counting the exact same amount as the others?
2
Agreed. Let’s get rid of the Electoral College too!
1
it's not white privilege that's the issue -- it's IOWA privilege. who decided that Iowa is deserving of so much attention? we're talking about pandering to 240,000 voters, max. in 2016, 1.97 million people voted in the Democratic primary in New York. why is an iowan's vote worth so much more than mine? it's ridiculous. I'd feel the same if Iowa's ethnic makeup exactly matched the national percentages.
I agree with the conclusion but not with many of the reasons. Demographics of the two states are besides the point. There's no reason why a primary can't be done on a national or largely regional basis (northeast and mid Atlantic states, Southern states, Mountain states, etc).
I'd also suggest ranked choice voting as well.
Iowa and New Hampshire's outsized role is downright silly. The only reason I'd support Bloomberg is to prove just how silly our current system is.
1
Winners never want to change the rules.
1
Totally agree. Could care less what occurs in Iowa caucuses.
Follow the money trail; Iowans love to vote first with millions of dollars brought into their state. They love their corn subsidies since Nixon was president—all that corn sugar produced to the detriment of America's health. And now federal payoff (welfare) to corn and soybean farmers while Trump meddles with exports to China. It would seem that Iowa has a money pipeline to Washington, and they don't want anything to change. As a precinct captain there, I met lots of fine people while knocking on doors. Sometimes we were invited in for baked cookies right out of the oven, on a cold winter's day. However, on Caucus night in a university town we had 720 Bernie people in the room, but only one was black person, a university athlete. Never did see a Latino.
Leonhardt's disdain for the current system was obvious from the start, but he saved the best for last, in particular, the final sentence, in which he wildly mischaracterizes the self-image of Iowans and the reasons they want to hold onto their first-in-the-nation status.
"We're better than you, and we deserve special treatment forever," judges Leonhardt of Iowans' mentality. That interpretation is so contemptuous it borders on bigotry and skews what should be a fairly easy case to make had it not been made from the mountaintop, dripping with scorn. Given it's demographics, Iowa probably isn't the best place to kick off a presidential race, but much of the criticism I've heard about Iowa's status reveals an undercurrent of common jealousy that little, old Iowa is the center of media attention, if only for a short time, and also, maybe more importantly, a desire by other states to capitalize on the process. Why does Iowa get the cash cow every four years?
One of the biggest mistakes a politician, or in this case, a journalist, can make is putting words in people's mouths. Doing that reveals an inherent bias and undercuts their case, even if the case is otherwise pretty solid.
1
Yes yes yes. Let them be last for the next 300 years.
Why don't we hold the primaries in every state on a single day, just like we do the election? Candidates aren't traveling across the country in horse and carriage. There's no reason for this antiquated system that privileges *any* state over others by virtue of precedence.
1
As a Canadian, the primary system has always been the most confounding thing about US politics.
The second most confounding thing is the extension of two-party partisanship all they way down to the most minor civic elected positions, and the consequent importance of partisan identification to Americans' personal identity.
1
Ultimately, this discussion about primaries, where they take place and how long it takes is just another in the long list of single reasons: "follow the money".
For most, for any candidate that chooses to run, the marathon of primaries becomes the "survival of the fittest", hence, I would think there are many candidates whom because they have first to think of the amount of money they require just to get into the race(and from whom they secure that money), just can't be bothered. The media likes the long and drawn out process because of the "tens of millions" of dollars they make in political ads. A one day across the country primary, for them, would not be acceptable.
This is also another reason they despise Bernie Sanders. He wants public financing of elections. All this rhetoric about primaries and who gets "first dibs" is just smokescreen for the real agenda of division and maintaining the "status quo" of readers just arguing about the whole process, nothing more.
Thank you for this article. I concur. Let all of the money that flows into Iowa flow due to this practice flow into another state for a while. I nominate Alabama.
@Kevin Stuart Schroder
Ok. I had a laugh at your comment, but, no, seriously...
I'd say more representative states that are also swing states should go first; states unlikely to be contested should go last.
We'll miss seeing the candidates here in Iowa, but yes, we're not representative of the nation, and the caucus (instead of a primary) makes it even harder for vulnerable populations to have their say.
1
Speaking of numbers and influence: I crunched the numbers a few years ago: Iowa and New Hampshire have 4 % to 6 % of both the primary vote in the party and Electoral College vote. So what's the big deal? Me thinx it is the media has made it what it is, IMO should not be. Full disclosure: I am very pro-press and am the furthest person away from being an anti-government zealot.
Democrats should order presidential primaries based on the prior presidential election in order of closeness by percentage of voters.
This would allow swing states to have the maximum influence on choosing the party's candidate and maximize the chance that those swing states would find the party's candidate acceptable.
Time to scrap the Electoral College and make every vote count with the National Popular Vote:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/15/national_popular_vote_bipartisan_reform_to_presidential_elections_142147.html
“It’s time to set partisanship aside, move to a National Popular Vote for president, and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections for generations to come.
It’s time to end the tyranny of a handful of battleground states that suck up every dollar and ounce of candidate time, money, and energy and leave 215 million Americans in 38 states sitting on the political sidelines.
It’s time to leverage the power of the Constitution to ensure that every voter in every state is politically relevant in every presidential election.”
1
@Bronx Jon The Electoral College will never be "...scrapped...". It is in the Constitution. The small states - Red and Blue- all benefit from it.
Leave it to the NYT to make it all about race and identity politics, all the while decrying the split in our country.
3
And New Hampshire needs to be jettisoned as well...its not 1960 folks...white privilege not cool..never was
A form of white privilege ?
Give it a rest David, you are really reaching here.
The two states are picked for a good reason, which is why any wriuter at the Times must by all means attack them.
New England is full of lefties and the grain belt isn't.
A microcosm that doesn't always indicate that the nation is prepared to adopt that favorite of Times writers, statist-socialism, but does often provide real insight into what the real world thinks.
1
@Objectivist Blah, blah, blah. Alt right venom splooge.
1
This sounds like an arguably valid point used in service of a timely sour grapes response to the Times’ endorsees coming in 4th or lower here.
White states vote first. It sounds like a GOP primary. You’re right, it’s racist. I hadn’t seen that before. How about diverse states vote first. Texas, California, Florida, Minnesota.
And a similar complaint should be lodged against the NY Times editorial page not only because it is all white dudes who mostly share the same worldview, politics and cocktail party ideology, but because there is no diversity of opinion at a time when ideas are exploding all across the country on matters of the environment, sexuality, gender, economic inequality, homelessness, mass incarceration that are never aired in the Times endless complaining about Trump and its cynical aversion to Bernie Sanders. At least when the Times hired Safire to explain Nixon and Reagan to the liberal elites, it was an attempt to deal honestly with what was happening in the country. But Brooks, Stephens and Douthat are basically the same person. As is Thomas Friedman and Bari Weiss. The Times is its own Iowa caucus - and the country is passing you by.
3
Okay, let's go first with a state that has a lot of Hispanics, the national average of blacks (10%) and is much larger in population... Texas!!!
"In truth, the whiteness of Iowa and New Hampshire matters," Leonhardt writes, and in so doing he invites his readers to open their eyes to other instances where ethnic dominance "matter." Many such observations would be instantly rejected by this newspaper. Really, unbelievably mischievous article.
1
Ain’t that the truth. We don’t need a bunch of old white people from rural corn land deciding these things. Iowa, you had your turn. Get over yourself and let’s start with a truly multirainbowed population that actually looks like the real America. But no matter what DEMOCRATS all the way every race every ticket before we lose our democracy!!!
1
Wow! Speaking of paternalistic, this article smacks you in the face with it! Sounds like someone is a little cranky that their opinion isn't taken for gospel and embraced by the hicks.
2
Despite Mrs. Warren's campaign slogan of "structural change", when asked by journalist Amy Goodman, whether the order should be changed to better reflect the electorate, she became visibly agitated and responded "Look, I'm just a player in the game." . . .
Paternalistic, my foot!
A national primary would lead to real paternalism. It would give way too much power to party elites and be disastrous for our democracy. The party bosses and the national media would dominate the process (even more than they do now), and establishment celebrities, like Biden, would gain an insurmountable advantage. The Bloombergs and the Trumps might be able to buy their way in, but candidates like Sanders, Buttigieg, and Obama would have no chance to break through.
Without devoting at least some of the process to small-scale retail politics, you might as well just hand the process over to the party bosses. I'd much rather have IA and NH disproportionately represented in the early stages than hand the process over to a national party that could easily manipulate the outcome.
And let's get real. If IA and NH picked someone who out of touch with Democratic voters, then California and New York could easily overrule them and pick someone else. IA and NH have the advantage of going first, but the delegates are allocated proportionally. The fact that this hasn't happened is proof that, demographics aside, Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats are actually pretty representative of the party as a whole.
2
@-brian You still haven't explained why Iowa and NH should go before any other random state. They don't own the process. Those states do not have any inherent right to being first in line. Why not New Jersey, Florida, California, or any other state or combination of states. Frankly, all of the primaries should be conducted over a 5 week period with 20% of the states selected by lottery to hold their primaries each week. Each election cycle the lottery could be run to determine the order of each state voting in the primaries. Fair for all. No state given a permanent unwarranted right to winnow the field by virtue of establishing early momentum for a particular candidate.
The people who are so adamant that their 2 little states maintain pole position are as partisan as their Republican counterparts.
2
Totally agree with this article....from Iowa.
3
Wait a minute! How did that many Hispanics come to live in these 2 states? Something is wrong here.
1
..........and the Electoral College should be abolished, we should open our borders, decriminalize illegal aliens, give free college and free everything, let's see, did I forget anything? How about destroying the Constitution in the process--it gets in your way. And who cares which state goes first? According to you, Russia determines our Presidents, right? So why does Iowa even matter? Ooooooh, I see, never mind ........
@Elizabeth Carlisle
Take a deep breath, Elizabeth. Making amendments to the Constitution isn’t quite the same as “....destroying the Constitution”. Soliciting and accepting help from foreign countries - now, THAT’T destroying the Constitution.
Says, "Run, Joe, Run" columnist. Be careful what you wish for. There's no perfect system.
I am one of the Iowans that Leonhardt holds in such disdain. Many of us poor hopeless dimwits in Iowa actually agree that the Iowa caucuses and their primacy in the primary season do a disservice to the process, but the condescension in this piece is really uncalled for.
2
@Grainne Just chill. I detected no condescension in the piece. People not living in the rural midwest would just like to have proportionate influence and effect over the process. Those of us not living in outposts like IA or NH already have to put up with the anachronistic electoral college and the un-representative Senate giving totally outsize voting power to underpopulated red states. As for condescension and disdain, plenty of that constantly hurled at "coastal elites". I feel your pain, but, oh well. Tough.
1
Two words sum up Iowa: Steve King
2
@SunInEyes King represents a very small portion of rural Northwestern Iowa. The urban Iowans that populate the Central and Eastern part of the state voted in two women and one male [and all three Democrats] to the House of Representatives in 2018. It actually makes the point that the narrative that Iowa is rural and white does not paint an accurate picture of the State of Iowa in 2020.
1
@sunineyes that’s like branding all
NewYorkers as Trump:Giuliani land
2
Talk about white privilege, the candidate out in front now, Bernie Sanders The Man Of The People, represents from what I have read is the whitest state in the nation, Vermont
2
The first Democratic Primaries should be held in Camden New Jersey and East St. Louis.
There, are you satisfied Mr. Lion Heart?
More nonsense. Biden and Sanders are in the lead in the national polls as well as the Iowa and New Hampshire polls. Pick any state and the race is between Biden and Sanders.
The problem isn't the primary structure, the problem is your pig headed bias.
2
Iowa is all set to betray their fellow Americans again, aren't they?
Traitors.
Well, yeah.
Thanks for saying so loudly, though.
Boy it really hurts having the Bern leading all the other candidates. He's not a woman and he's white. Oh my.
@Robert
Bernie will not be leading long. Iowa and NH will be his high-water mark. Enjoy the lead while it lasts. bernie hits the wall Down South and here in the East.
Why? Oh why? Oh why? Two white bread states get to set the trajectory of the primaries. Is this the DNC or just the Dems’ infallible instinct for self destruction. Oh wait, it’s both!
1
@Cat The reason the DNC still keep doing what they've always done, and getting the same results they've always gotten is that they've simply put no thought up to this point in why the process is the way it is and whether it should ever change.
Arizona should go first as it is the future of the Decade Party
This whole argument has merit, of course. It's a shame Mr. Leonhardt has to use it as a thinly disguised platform to (once again) diminish Bernie Sanders. Now that it looks like Mr. Sanders can win the first two states, David Leonhardt is setting up the argument that Iowa and N.H. either don't or shouldn't matter.
What Mr. Leonhardt is really saying here is, "Hang in there, Biden supporters, a.k.a. "real" Dems, we'll get him in South Carolina."
The tip-off is the tired myth that Bernie Sanders mostly appeals to white "bros" and Biden is the man of choice for people of color. Of course that's not supported by facts, but since when has that ever stopped a NY Times columnist from attempting a Sanders takedown.
1
@J.C. Iowa and NH should matter...in proportion to the amount of electoral votes they represent, not as some unquestioned alleged bellwethers of national sentiment that causes the media to elevate or denigrate a candidate based on the first unduly small sample size of primary votes.
Frankly, if we could get rid of the inherently flawed electoral college that gives agraria outsize voting power, and the electoral votes each sparsely populated state gets for it's 2 senators, the country would be better off. We could throw off the current tyranny of the minority that the RepubliKKlans have established.
Classic.
'is a form of white privilege' - If you can't win an argument, use the race card.
The reason why Iowa should not be first is because it does not represent the country. But neither does LA, or Boston, or NYC. They are in the opposite ends of the spectrum, one is deeply rural with a few Liberals, the others are Liberal Paradise, both places where different voices cannot be heard. But then again, no single place represents a 50/50 vision of the USA
Solution is simple - no more primaries, just all in, winner takes all.
Wouldn't that work better?
1
How about something novel like...um...oh yeah...a national primary that lets us all have an equal say in the process? What a concept, right?
Oh and let's dump the electoral college too! It's long past time to bring democracy to this country!
1
It's the MEDIA that make Iowa and New Hampshire so important.
So stop it. Stop obsessing over Iowa and new Hampshire.
And your polling is out of date. Sanders leads with Latinos and with people of color overall. Biden leads with African-Americans.
1
The current system is a joke! We should be ashamed of ourselves and this entire ridiculous process.......AND the Electoral College. We really must be full of ourselves to think that THIS is a true democracy. haha!
It's the ultimate poll tax for candidates who are non-white and especially for those who are Black.
Exactly!!
Sorry, Iowans, I’m sure y’all are nice, but your (91 percent white) population—the size of one smallish city —should. not. get. to. winnow. down. the. options. for. the. entire. country.
2
David Leonhardt, who wrote over and over again in 2016 that the Democrats needed to nominate Hillary because of her "electability," should never be listened to again.
2
2 new laws would fix (almost) everything wrong with our current system: [*1]
1) Every state holds primaries on the same date, where
2) Every voter votes a Ranked Choice ballot.
Imagine how differently candidates would have to campaign.
Imagine how many more people would vote, knowing that, if their first choice doesn’t win, their vote still _mattered_.
It’s the 21st Century. Why are we still voting like it’s the 18th?
1] Oh, yeah, let’s also talk about that stupid Electoral College thing...
It doesn't take a NYT Opinion to convince that the system needs serious adjustment, but don't hang "paternalistic and condescending " on us, please.
Also, the eight sentence suggested solution probably needs a little more discerning. (Not saying we're "better than the rest of you.")
Regarding the "media narrative". Well, I guess that's on the media. Oh, wait...
1
They've got 99 counties and the people welcome all people of all political persuasions.
I can't think of another place in America that has this built in advantage.
Leave the Iowegians alone.
Absolutely agree.
It appears that the entire system is a form of white privilege considering that the White man is most responsible for all the good and evils that this country has done in its history.
True enough... but let's expand the argument...for Dems, why place ANY of the old CSA states, or for that matter those between the left bank of the Mississippi and the Rockies, early?
Maybe somewhere in the 2040s a Dem will win SC...and there is a point, Biden's win there will create an opportunity for false spinners.
Biden is doing better than Bernie among "Latinos"? Not those under 45...& not in NV and CA.
For Dems it would have been good if WI, MI, & PA were the early contests (and as to CSA...VA, FL, TX, even LA & TX matter for Dem choices).
If Biden can not best Buttidedge in IA & NH it becomes a different 2 man race, forget SC.
I wonder if Mr. Leonhardt would have written this column if his favorite politicians were losing in Iowa and New Hampshire. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it, as Upton Sinclair predicted.
Abolish the Electoral College first. Otherwise, losers can still be installed as President, like we have now.
Just had to toss in one false Sanders jab, suggesting he is only supported by white people. So NYTimes. Whoever edited this piece clearly didn’t care about factually stating that Bernie now has overtaken Biden for support with people of color. And women. But cool, just casually toss out that Bernie is the White people candidate in an article about how the white states of Iowa and NH should not have such sway over the election process. Quite a shame, because this is otherwise a very good and true article.
2
Caucus?
Wasn’t that something that was practiced at a time when most people where illiterate and the fastest way to communicate was a rider and a horse?
USA sure is using a primitive version of democracy!
.... by the way, how much money does one need to buy oneself a presidency this time?
A question from a Swede
@Sture Ståhle
Q.... by the way, how much money does one need to buy oneself a presidency this time?
A question from a Swede
A. (Putin's net worth * 0.15) + (MBS's bone saw budget/number of beheadings in SA in 2018) * (Money laundering fine amount paid by Deutsche Bank in the last decade - number of outright lies Trump has told in the most current 3 day period).
For "progressives" everything is always about race.
Why not a national primary day??
1
The terms "white privilege" and "whiteness" are used as derogatory terms.
Therefore, they are racist terms and offensive.
1
"Iowa and New Hampshire are among the country’s whitest states. About 6 percent of their combined population is black or Asian-American."
Very much like Vermont... Home state of your favorite firebrand.
Why not rotate them among all the states?
2
Bernie Sanders leads among Latino voters, not Biden. If the person with the whitest supporters automatically won Iowa then Pete Buttigieg would be the candidate. I bet if Buttigieg was leading the Iowa polls this wouldn't have been written.
2
It is idiocy that Iowa and New Hampshire play such an out sized role in choosing the Democratic Party nominee. These two mostly rural and overwhelmingly white states do not reflect the nation as a whole. Why the Democratic Party continues this is beyond me. The system does need to be fairer, and the hysteria over Iowa is just ridiculous. Additionally, the caucus system means only die hard voters will come out. People with disabilities have historically been excluded. I went to one caucus in my home state and it was most ridiculous thing I have ever participated in. Inconvenient location, inconvenient time. It is maddening that small, unrepresentative states have so much power. Yes, Iowa will kick and scream because otherwise no politician would even visit most likely. They also make millions of dollars off of it. The entire system needs a serious revision.
1
Just another cockamamie way the US tells its coastal urban residents they don’t matter. We should take the hint and leave.
1
My father, Clifton Guy Larson or Clif Larson, you spelled it wrong in your article did indeed change the date of the caucuses for more time and prominence for Iowa democrats.
Thanks, his son Steven
A state that gave the country its first black president cannot be said to be acting to defend its privilege. Contrast this with the way black voters have "kept an open mind on Pete Buttigieg in South Carolina. Why not dump One Person, One Vote while you're at it, and have "Biggest State, Biggest Voice?" Stay on the East Coast - oh, you're already doing that.
2
Yes we should rethink the order of primaries.
Also, fact check: @BernieSanders leads the pack among Latinos according to all polls I’ve seen, not Biden. This includes a poll your own newspaper did! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/bernie-sanders-latino-voters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
There is always the smoked filled room.
‘.....which is a pretty stark bit of paternalism”. Exactly! Paternalism is at the root of so-o-o much of what is wrong in the U.S. it’s not just “white privilege”, and I know this will falsely label me a “man hater”, but it’s “white male privilege”. For far too long, politics and the media had been all-male bastions of solidarity and indifference to the concerns of any “others”. I haven’t grown an ear of corn or owned a pig at any time in my entire life, so how come old, white guys that do, have the right to decide who I get to vote for? Could I please have a turn
Small towns, farms, cornfields, cities, universities, and nicknamed the “Crossroads of America” — I think Indiana should go first!
Excellent points, both in the essay and in the posts, and common to my own thinking. Notwithstanding the researched issues or the testimony of those discontented and disillusioned Iowans , I have felt for years that their caucus was a hot mess, and invited a circus-like atmosphere, albeit financially advantageous. Iowans are indeed not a representative sample of American voters, and should not be treated with the over sized respect they enjoy because of the interminable attention by both the candidates and the media. Perhaps if other states voted to have earlier primaries, Iowa's importance might be diminished.
At least Mr. Leonhardt correctly identified that Iowa and New Hampshire are first because their laws declare they always will be. That being the case, he fails to mention who exactly is in a position to tell IA and NH that they can't be first. The DNC is not in a position to dictate state laws, and the Constitution reserves such things to the states. I also don't like that these two white old rural states have such an outsize impact on our elections, but anyone who complains about it is obligated to say not only what can be done but who could and might do it.
1
As many commenters have noted, ranked choice voting really ought to be used in the primaries. But rather than successive rounds to declare one winner, as would be the case in a general election with RCV, winnow the field to four or so delegate winners (maybe a few more in big states, fewer in small states), and then on a point basis (four for the top vote getter, three for second place, etc.,) award delegates based on that outcome.
And rather than a single national primary day, hold three or four primary days, picking the states holding elections on a given day to give a regional and size based mix.
Not only should Iowa not go first; all caucuses must end. We must have primaries which will promote more voter participation. The Democrats have to take a stand; either stand for inclusion of more voters during the primaries or risk being accused of being held hostage by the activists of the party.
1
Sure, let's fix Iowa/New Hampshire.
BUT, why not address problems with the process overall? Primaries start way too early, long before voters pay much attention. They are also unfair in a key way, most are first past the post which means they don't feature any compromise to find a consensus candidate to best match the greatest number of voters' expectations. What's really needed is a ranked choice model to ensure we have the best candidates in the general election.
Superior? How does voter turnout in these tiny states compare to others? What about the criticisms of the caucus procedure itself ? Why not a series of nationwide simultaneous primaries until one candidate emerges with a majority? How about limiting primary voters to registered party member who cannot switch
Parties during the primaries? There must be many ways to better serve the people rather than the parties and special interests, like hotels and media who desire advertising revenues.
If the Democratic party is concerned with equal representation, please consider a system of rotation where every state gets its turn to be first.
NPR did an article on which state would be most representative of the entire United States, and came up with Illinois. Perhaps Illinois should go first, then South Carolina, then Nevada, and after that, Iowa and New Hampshire.
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464250335/the-perfect-state-index-if-iowa-n-h-are-too-white-to-go-first-then-who
Yes. Iowa launched Buchanan and Gephardt to the presidency, and blocked Obama.
2
I for the life of me, will never understand why we elect by electoral college and not by popular vote. Elecroral colleges have become a form of white control over politics. Joe Shmoe in Iowa should not have more of a say than I do, in New York. My vote should count.
@Kevin
I get it and share some of your frustrations.
But remember, the Founders did not create a single unified nation, they created a republic of sovereign states, each of which wanted a say in how the republic was governed. Popular voting would allow someone to gain power by pandering / controlling the electoral process in just a handful of large states, and ignoring the residents of the majority of states.
@Steven @Kevin That's why we live in the United States, not the United People of America. The erosion of state sovereignty into greater federal power is a somewhat modern notion. To understand why the system is as it is, you have to learn about their thinking at the time rather than view it from today's perspective.
I'm sorry but this is all nonsensical blather. If South Carolina was first you'd all be bemoaning the outsized influence that African Americans would be having on the process - hence there is no "perfect solution" and people should just chill out and let the process work. This just reinforces that Democrats do one thing really well, put themselves at an inherent disadvantage by trying to be too many things to too many people.
1
Total agreement with dumping the entire current system. It is simply, as is so well pointed out in this article one of many tools of white wealth supremacy being used to manipulate the core value of Democracy.
It would be nice to see wealth distribution chart by race in both of thse towns , also an age chart would bervealing too.
"That the good people there take extra care in selecting candidates. And many Iowans and New Hampshirites are good people who take their civic duty seriously."
This is perhaps the dumbest comment that could possibly be made made.. The rest of the nation do not have "good people who take their civic duty seriously." Seriously, someone wants to say that is a reason for being FIRST!
Fine with me to pass it around; South Carolina is currently an established "early state" and I'd like to be able to go out to breakfast out with friends without falling over at least 3 presidential candidates down at Tommy's Ham House.
1
Your candidate(s) isn’t doing well so let’s change the rules. This article is as wrong footed as The NY Times goofy editorial board double endorsement. Why is it necessary to have early primary states where there’s a city over 250,000 people? Do people in big cities elect better candidates (see Mayor Bill de Blasio). Can’t wait to see your piece on restructuring the electoral college.
Since you’ve volunteered yourself to baby sit Senator Warren, try to go 3 days straight without speaking half truths and hyperbole she would probably win.
3
"...The strongest part of the case for change, of course, is the racial aspect of the current calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire are among the country’s whitest states. About 6 percent of their combined population is black or Asian-American. Almost 87 percent is non-Hispanic white, compared with 60 percent for the country as a whole. Demographically, Iowa and New Hampshire look roughly like the America of 1870..."
Excuse me. This is a classic lie in plain sight. Stop picking on Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Democrat Party got rid of its non-white presidential candidates, on its own, without any help from the racial or ethnic makeup of Iowa or New Hampshire.
3
All the more reason to respect Mike Bloomberg's strategy to let the other Dem nominees shoot each other in the circular firing squads of Iowa, NH and SC pandering to a handful of voters while he gains rapid, uncontested attention in the states that really matter.
1
IOWA is a myth made real by media members.
As a former Iowan, one point is being completely missed. Iowa never claimed to represent the nation as a whole. It speaks only for Iowa and the overhyped media have converted it into something else. So physician of the New York Times, heal thyself.
6
We are told iowans take it seriously. Past winners huckabee and Santorum! Seriously?
1
It's funny that Leonhardt, all the media, and most of the commenters here are discussing election strategies as if elections matter anymore.
We have elected an emperor in the last election. and he will remain emperor for life.
Maybe rearranging deck chairs on the Titannic makes us feel better?
Another NYT Times “everything is race and privilege” article. Aaagh!
Has it occurred to the Times that voters of all colors, including white voters, in later voting states are robbed of choice?
Our primary system/voting system is seriously flawed and continues to move farther and farther away from democracy. As an independent in NY, I can’t vote in any primary. Even if I could, by the time the NY primary happens many candidates are already gone.
The now two year campaign cycle, that starts after the midterms requires SO MUCH MONEY. We bash Bloomberg for his spending, but getting on the debate dais is predicated on polls and how much money a candidate raked in. A caucus style primary is not the problem.
We need a national primary day, followed by a 90 day campaign period, and Election Day. Stop the electoral college nonsense. We’ve lived through two elections where the people voted one way and the electoral college appointed the person with less votes.
Everyone, not just people of color, are robbed of democracy in the current way of doing things.
For the record I am an American of Hispanic decent.
1
Excellent collusion between the Democrats and the Democrat media.
Exquisite timing really.
However, this ploy will also fail.
White privilege? Bushwa. This is a classic case of local yokel boosterism, same as in New Hampshire. Both states get away with it because we do not have a national system for nominating presidential candidates — and because the other 48 states are content not to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire. For example, South Carolina could, if it so desired, pass a law mandating that South Carolina's primary must be the first in the nation. But South Carolina lacks the fortitude to challenge New Hampshire.
Stop using race as an all purpose explanation for why something is amiss.
1
Why can't all the primaries be held at once, just as we hold the general election? And why are results released as polls close? Hold them all until the next day so the later time zones - Hawaii! - have the same impact as the east coast.
1
They are important because the candidates allow them to be important. They should stop putting so much of their time and resources in those two places. Announce that intend to run in all the primaries and court the nation's voters as a whole. Don't spend 90 of 100 $ on the first two, spend $5, another 5 or 10 on SC etc. Take it to the convention. They are putting everything into one little basket that doesn't look anything like the BIG basket.
No state should go first. There should be one federal primary day, just as there is one federal general election day.
1
I've always thought going to regional primaries made more sense by grouping together a half dozen or fewer states to hold contests on the same day, with the order of the regions rotated to give each a turn at the front of the year. This way candidates could campaign more efficiently and economically across state lines, regional TV buys could reach all relevant markets and debates could be clustered in a specific area for maximum effect. The interest and dollars would still flow, but the calendar wouldn't be as piecemeal. And you'd get more candidates visiting voters where they live rather than holding events on airport tarmacs. Rather than just Iowa, you'd get Iowa along with Illinois, Missouri and a few other states. New Hampshire could be joined by Massachusetts and the rest of New England. It might not create maximum diversity, but it's a move in the right direction.
1
" ... the volatile nature of the Democratic primary after more than a year of campaigning ... " And with many months still left before the election - how many voters have that kind of attention span? As an Independent voter disgusted with Mr. Trump, I have problems with both major parties. Mr. Bloomberg comes across as outside the normal party machinations, albeit with some controversies in his past. No effort in Iowa, but having already spent a lot on TV ads, e.g. here in Texas. 38 electoral votes vs. Iowa's six, and Personal finance website Wallethub ranked Houston as the most diverse city in America. I agree with his policies, especially the main goal of removing Mr. Trump, whoever the Democratic nominee is.
Seem to me that David Leonhardt is the one being "paternalistic and condescending".
The logic behind his proposal: Too many of the wrong people - (white rural voters living in middle America) are holding too much power.
Why are Iowans the wrong people? Maybe Leonhardt believes that white farmers from the mid-west are not sufficiently civic-minded or intelligent to consider the interests of the nation as a whole, or empathize with concerns of minorities, or comprehend the magnitude of their responsibilities as voters.
Sounds pretty condescending to me.
By the way, if white candidates are expected to bend over backward to appeal to minority voters in big cities, why aren't black candidates expected to do the same for white voters in places like Iowa? Maybe if Booker and Harris ran more like Obama, they'd still be in the race.
2
@joyce
But you are only thinking short-term and it is too late to change that. Once we get past 2020, the problems cited in Iowa having such a disproportional effect will only worsen as the state gets whiter and older.
Fully agree.
The DNC MUST, MUST, MUST change the order of primaries for 2024. Obviously, a Purple state with a diverse Democratic electorate is key. It should also be a state in which only REGISTERED DEMOCRATS can vote in the Democratic primary.
PA meets both criteria. Other states may as well.
Simply put, we cannot eliminate potential nominees based on the preferences of two of the whitest states in the country.
What we need is a National Primary, over the course of a week or two, where we vote for our top five choices. By doing that we'd know very early who our candidate was, the second place vote getter could be the VP pick and we wouldn't be spending a fortune on running all over the nation rather than working to wrest the government back from a party dedicated to suppressing votes and trampling on our democracy.
At the root of all this is a long-standing American belief that heavily urban states are somehow "less American". It's been around since the days of Jefferson and his vision of a nation of gentleman farmers who had a better sense of democracy and virtue than anyone else. Your average stereotypical Iowan is a white, moderate-to-conservative farmer or blue collar worker, which many people still label the "average American", never mind this connotation is decades out of date.
Just have all the primaries on one day. Why not?
1
If the pundits and national media would dial back their fascination with the horse race by about two-thirds, Iowa would remain a reasonable place for a horde of candidates to test messages, vet staff, hone speaking skills and learn how to talk to and with voters. The takeaway from Iowa the morning after should be, "Well, that was sort of interesting." It would not be unlike Broadway producers of years past who took their plays to New Haven to work out the kinks out of the glare of the bright lights.
Its always great to be able to hear the canidates in person. The states that need the most attention are the states where the party came close in the last Presidential election in the Electoral College. Lets look at a system that addresses those states by letting them go first in the next Presidential election.
This is not even about "white privilege" as much as it is about the broken primary system in America. Most of the primaries are closed, so you must declare a party and get only the ballot for that party to choose from. The primary system therefore forces candidates to appeal to the fringe voters, who are the most likely to vote.
By having primaries over 4-5 months, early states cull the field when candidates who might do well in the general don't do well in the small primaries or Iowa caucus, so by time the last states have votes in May or after, we vote not on who we want but who is left.
All states should have primaries for national offices at the same time. They should be open so that republicans who don't want the republican to get nominated can vote for the democrat, and vice-versa. Why are primaries held by state when they want, but the general election is just one day? It is a terrible system that only works to protect incumbents and keep those not active in either party from voting at all until the general.
Donald Trump could not have won had all the primaries been open and occuring the same week or weekend.
1
David is right that "the current system is a form of white privilege that warps the process". However having the first primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire is not the problem. The bigger problems are the electoral college and the Senate. The original purpose of these systems was to give slave states a disproportionate say in government. Eliminating the electoral college to elect representatives based on popular vote and senate representatives based on population.
Here's the thing, i completely agree with you on this, however I know that if it was Amy in first in Iowa this column wouldn't be written. It would be how important it is to hear the voice of real Americans from the heartland, the vital center etc.
Yes!
I agree wholeheartedly. We need to reform our democracy, and this is one of the most important steps we can take!
1
I am fed up with a bunch of uneducated bumpkins controlling our political destiny. Signed -- Stanford Advanced Degree Liberal, working to automate all farming, truck driving, factory and other rust belt jobs.
Yeah, the future is mutual.
Claiming that if the population of a state is "too white" it should not be allowed to go first is as racist an argument as they come. Another example of the problem and unfairness of identity politics.
1
The process and practice of the Iowa caucus are a circus.
1. exclusive process, held for a few hours at night;
2. held in the middle of winter in the upper midwest ... it snows here;
3. the state's population is ~90% white;
4. the % of Iowans who typically participate is shockingly low.
5. the Iowans are no more, and no less diligent and discerning than other voters in others states.
I can't believe everyone keeps showing up for this nonsense.
Once again, liberals seek to blame the refs.
We elected a horrid person for president in 2016. Who can we blame? Russians, Facebook, the founding fathers via the Electoral College and the Senate, and now we blame Iowa and New Hampshire.
We could ask ourselves whether we are to blame, as well. Have Trump votes detected the condescension and contempt we have for them and their culture? Do we sense their anger in having been left behind in our rush to embrace the new and the cool? Do we understand how they simply don't care when we promise them a free college education when the feel, with more than a little justification, that college is overrated? Are they tired of being called misogynist and toxic when telling a racy, but funny joke?
Trump was elected according to the rules. And we knew those rules going into 2016. And we are certainly not going to change those rules between now and November (if ever). So deal with it. I have yet to see a baseball game in which one team refused to give it their all until the strike zone was changed.
Here's an idea: Let's take a vote. We can do it at the next national election. And while we're at it, let's have all the states vote for a change to do vote-by-mail, as we do in Oregon. No more long lines, no more Republican voter suppression schemes, no Russia-hacked computers or hanging chads. Just a thought.
Merely another aspect of how backward and corrupt our political processes truly are. We pretend that we're so inclusive, small-d democratic and advanced. And yet we're enmired in the first half of the 19th century complete with oh-so-boring stemwinder speeches from the idiotic candidates. Primaries like elections should all be on the same day throughout the nation. Like campaign finance reform, does anyone recall Common Cause and Archibald Cox after 1973 who wanted to amend the constitution to prevent another ugly Watergate? Greed and venality prevail and virtue is all but forgotten in our electoral processes...
1
How about putting a stop to this nonstop months long political rodeo which is presidential primaries? A system that nominates and ultimately elects a narcissistic con man like Donald Trump is broken. Have the primaries take place in a much shorter time frame and let the results be one factor, but not the only factor, in who gets the nomination. The country needs some measure of protection against yahoos who are great at inflaming the emotions of a crowd but are terrible people and awful politicians. Our democracy is close to being broken by a psychopath, whom the people, in their infinite wisdom, chose as the Republican nominee and whom the Republican leadership are about to acquit for high crimes and misdemeanors brazenly admitted to.
1
This issue isn't about Iowa or New Hampshire. It's about the idea of EVERY voter having equal influence. There must be a national primary day. No more jockeying between states for the earliest date!
The road to a Minnesota passes through Iowa. Along that road sits a casino. A convenient place to stop, buy fuel, and contribute to the Iowa state coffers. I really like stopping there. I’m the youngest person in the building. I’m 75.
This is more than a mere problem of selecting who goes first. Caucuses are very UNDEMOCRATIC and should be used only to select delegates to the convention after a vote of the people. Second, all elections should be mail in paper ballots, which eliminates a significant barrier to voter participation. The voting booth of yesteryear is an arcane relic that only enhances the ability for voter suppression. Third, Ranked Choice voting needs to be implemented, especially when there is a large field which allows a candidate like our current occupant of the WH to win the nomination with a plurality. Finally, a system of 4-5 regional primaries can be established, with each region taking turns to go first with 3-4 weeks in between voting. This allows candidates to be able to have expend less resources having to go cross country all the time.
It's not just this, there are many things wrong with U.S. presidential elections. Many people talk about the electoral college, but something that gets much less attention is our plurality based voting system, one of the worst ways for an election to accurately reflect the preference of the people. A better strategy would be instant runoff and it would not be much more difficult (i.e., everybody, rather than just votes, just ranks the candidates in order of their preference). With an instant runoff, for example, third-party candidates would be much more viable and it would diminish the severity of the problem with Iowa and New Hampshire.
Alas, there are many inequities in our system for selecting the president. And the Iowa/New Hampshire primaries are certainly among them. A you say, it would not be hard to create a fairer system, that is, not hard to imagine a fairer system - changing systems is rarely easy.
In the meantime folks can try to think beyond system inequities. We don't necessarily need to get overly worked up over the first primary or two. Voters in states with later primaries don't need to follow the earlier state primary crowd. Nor do primary voters needed to be overly influenced by the TV ads flooding their living rooms - ignore them If you're concerned about big money influencing elections.
We all have the opportunity to think for ourselves, get information from a variety of sources and make judgements on the accuracy of that information. And we can try not to be unduly controlled by our biases, nor feel the candidates we support must align with us on all issues. Yes, this take a bit of effort - effort that folks elsewhere (DPRK, for example) are not burdened with. Democracy requires this effort.
I listened to a podcast about New Hampshire's long-serving Sec. of State and his battle to keep NH as the first primary state. There was a lot of talk about politics, but then the seminal question was asked: what is the economic effect on the state? That's when the truth came out. NH is not a wealthy state, and the primary draws gazillions of dollars into the state in advertising, campaigning pols and their entourages, reporters, hotel rooms, meals, the whole shebang. And that's only because NH is "first."
As always...follow the money. Always.
1
I have to agree. Every national election, I wonder why Iowa is such a big deal. Next to go away is the caucus. It's so undemocratic. One person, one vote is the way of democracy.
Further, I don't really want all my neighbors to know how I"m going to vote. At least I don't have to be ashamed of my vote, nor worry about who will patronize my store because I support someone they may not like, and nobody should have to feel shut out because of the caucus peer pressure, nor the weather, nor the time of day, nor babysitters, etc.
NO state should go first. We should have four Super Tuesdays. Divide the US and territories into quarters and then assign states from each quarter to different Super Tuesdays. It would be fair and more representative of where ALL voters are. The US is too varied geographically for any one state to be indicative of all the others.
1
I don't disagree with anything you write, but if Iowa went later, then Iowa will flip red forever. The GOP would love to get rid of the caucus for that reason. It is the great interest (and money and organizing) of the Democratic party in Iowa that has kept the state mostly blue over the years. So, if you want to turn Iowa into Kansas, get rid of its 1st-mover advantage and all of the interest and organizing will go elsewhere. Many Midwest democrats feel the DNC has abandoned them anyway, why not just make it obvious?
2
@John As a Kansas who recently moved to Iowa, I think this is actually a really important point.
Thank you Mr Leonhart. The primary process is insane but we rarely question it. The roads are paved, the mud problem is solved. Mass media reaches everywhere, but it is controlled by a private sector that is in the advertising business. We could nationalize chunks of it so each candidate has equal time and reach to state their positions. We might have the primary election all on the same day so the nominee could get on with running for president while there is still some money left. That would be a lot like socialism though and the media would oppose it bloody tooth and nail.
I don't think the color of the voters who go first is a particularly interesting issue. The states should have their primaries in five consecutive days (10 each day) in, say the first week of March. It would even be better if they all go in one day (a Saturday or Sunday) six months before the general election (again on a weekend day to maximize participation, including the participation of Black and Latino voters who are less flexible to take time off from their work to vote on a Tuesday).
Advocate relevant reforms not marginal or tangential touch-ups. There is so much wrong in our electoral process that who goes first is really the least of my concerns.
1
Excellent column, David. However, you didn't say what the mechanism is for changing after 2020. Is it up to the Democratic and Republican national committees? Who decides? I don't see how a law passed by either Iowa or NH can mean diddly in deciding the order of primaries. And if, God forbid, that Trump wins again, the DNC should be held accountable for this biased primary system.
1
No distracting excuse is too trivial, extreme or ridiculous for the eternal devotion to denying Democratic Party spinelessness as a cause of Trump.
I'm sick and tired of hearing that it's good that Iowa and New Hampshire go first because their voters have to have the chance to personally meet the candidates before deciding for whom to vote.
I have been voting in Democratic primaries for over 40 years and have never yet met a single candidate. I suppose using the above argument, I should have just sat at home and not voted because without meeting the candidates I really didn't know what I was doing.
Apparently people in those two states can't read anything about candidates or their positions. One might think that they are filled with illiterates.
2
Who is creating this false narrative, pray tell Mr. Leonhardt? I'll bet multiple in-house and invited op-ed writers here at the Gray Lady want the story line to be this" Warren on the Left damaged and Mr. Biden deeply wounded.
That these two states (one of which is likely to vote for Trump in the general) are predictive of anything is a fable promoted by the candidates having problems with black and brown people. It is also the catnip for lazy cable "journalists" who will use momentum in every sentence and declare the race over.
It is past time Democrats change this farce. More importantly any candidate getting 32 to 35 percent in Iowa against a large field may come in "first" but is hardly destined to win the nomination. Yet I know, and so do the Sanders cult, that the reason he built such a large ground game there was to get the benediction of the news media if he gets a plurality of the votes. I also know that should that happen, Murdoch's media and hate radio will make strange bedfellows with the left wing commentariat in declaring Warren, Biden etc. politically dead.
African-Americans shut out again. Asian and Hispanic Americans ignored. Can we at least wait for Super Tuesday before we call this entire race?
1
If it wasn't for Iowa, the US wouldn't have ever heard of Barack Obama. The smallness of the market allows less rich campaigns to get themselves noticed. Iowans may be quite white but they still pick BHO above all the other candidates in 2008.
5
@Brian Let's not forget Jimmy Carter's third place win in Iowa, the first time most anyone had heard of him.
1
Who believes David Leondhardt is more concerned about white privilege than the fact that Bernie—who‘s doing quite well with voters of color—is surging in Iowa?
1
Dear David Leonhardt,
I like your suggestion!
Why not have all (50) states and provinces vote on the same exact day?
Good points made. Thanks.
Top-tier sports leagues seem to have no problem whatever, handling this...
If you finish first, you get the lowest draft picks...
Sooo…
Here, whoever caucuses or primaries first – loses half their convention delegates...
The runner-up loses a third of their slots...
And so on...
PS
They also have well-established rules for buying or selling a team...
For an entire league – less so...
But they're willing to watch and learn...
Agree 100%. Iowa and New Hampshire should never go first. The other 48 states should go in together. Or there should be a rotation of states. Or there should simply be a lotto. Iowans and Hampshirians are not the only ones who take their civic duty seriously. Seriously!
If Democrats want the candidate with the best chance to beat Trump, then let the states with the closest outcome in the previous presidential general election vote first in the next round of primaries. Letting Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina vote first increases the probability that the Democratic nominee will be a candidate who can win those critical purple states.
This system would increase the likelihood of competitive general elections and improve the probability that the nominee appeals to centrist tipping point voters, not just the Party's base.
1
I have lived at different times in different States and driven across the country so I am familiar with the USA and with the American military I met in Europe and Viet Nam.
But I do not understand why you have this peculiar (meaning unique, special) system of Primaries. Why should they not all be held on the same day? Why drag them out?
[I know -- it's always been done that way!]
Please explain for the sake of the mystified foreigners and possibly even the inhabitants.
1
I like how Leonhardt compares the demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire to America of 1870 and not the last time the country was 87% white i.e. the early 1960s.
1
there should be a series of regional primaries
1
Even we whites elsewhere agree with this. End the Electoral College, put all the primaries on the same day, staggered for time zones, and let's have a democracy.
3
Dave's real problem here is that the guy he doesn't like is leading the polls.
Iowa voted for an African-American twelve years ago. It can do the same for a Democrat-Socialist Jew in 2020. So much for the canard about the preferences and implied prejudices of Iowa voters.
Think about it, New York.
5
And a form of 'people who aren't differently abled' privilege. Really unacceptable. It needs to end. This is ridiculous.
In my opinion this point of view is quite scandalous. Why oh why is everything in the US down to race, at least in the eyes of journalists?
Asians, blacks, hispanics and whites vote for ideas and platforms, not because of ethnicities. To think otherwise is deeply troubling. You celebrated MLK day last week, who said he dreamt of a country where a citizen is judged on the content of his character, not on the colour of his skin.
It doesn't matter if Iowa is predominantly white. Booker, Castro and Harris did not have the support that Biden or Sanders have amongst the black community. Are black people racist because they do not support black candidates?
1
Why should any state be first? If we were to have a national primary day, just like we have a national election day, the entire problem goes away.
As it stands, a nationally viable candidate may be cut out of the system by loses in whatever states vote early. Further, far too many voters will vote for a candidate on the basis of "he did well in the past primaries, so I want to follow a winner", voting for popularity in other places rather than for the candidate's record and positions. Finally, the wide stretch between the first and last primaries makes the campaign more expensive, granting an advantage to a well funded campaign and thereby making large donations more attractive, with all the problems involved with them.
I cannot see any advantage to spreading out the primary elections over such a long period of time, except to give the news media something to talk about.
1
How about having all primaries on the same day, preferably a weekend or holiday.
2
There are many, many reasons Iowa should not go first in any primary. White privilege may be one of them but it is not the top 10.
Let's be coldly realistic about the electoral math here: the swing states will decide this election, not Iowa, not New Hampshire, not New York, not California.
The swing states should go first, second and third. Everything else is a useless diversion.
1
This year I won't even pay attention to the earlier primaries. I will vote my conscience on March 3rd in CA. Hopefully the field remains split and the media doesn't do a disservice by amplifying that one candidate has momentum. The longer Trump doesn't know who he is going up agains the better, since his strategy is to use social media to bully and bluster. A confused and congested field is a good thing this year!
This is as dead obvious as the repeal of Daylight Saving Time. I vote, and it is maddening that my vote doesn’t count.
100% Mr. Leonhardt. It is disheartening to watch people who don't represent the populace at large be deputized to winnow the field. One of their top picks is a 30-something former mayor of the nation's 300th-largest town who polls at zero percent with people of color. That says it all.
Somebody gotta be first. Why not New Hampshire where retail politics matter. Media alone can’t get it done where I live here in Durham, NH.
2
How about a same day national primary in May with ranked-choice voting and then a run off vote a month later
1
@Paul Klaus This is the best solution I have heard yet. You could even expand the run-off to perhaps the top three. (Or anyone who reaches a designated benchmark percentage). Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is paying attention.
What I don't understand is this: political parties are in effect private clubs. Why does the government has anything whatsoever to do with their policies or procedures? I can belong to both a stamp collecting club and a bird watching club and I can vote for the president of both. Why can't I belong to two different parties if they'll have me and vote for my preferred candidate for each? After all, as far as the US government is - or rather should be - concerned, the only election that matters is the election for US president where I will have my one vote.
the enshrinement of the two party oligopoly by legal and regulatory structures is the real crime that our founders would been opposed to. every political scientist and mathematician with two brain cells to rub together can see that between that and the braindead "first past the post" system, the will of the people is perverted - and that's even before we talk about the intentional perversion called the electoral college.
if the logic of the current electoral system were tranted to any other field - say - medicine, then what we'd have today is universities full of smart people knowing exactly how to implement modern, life-saving techniques but out in the field we are still using leeches and trepanning for the benefit of the leech sellers and trepanners. moreover, we leave it up to each village coven to device which leech or trepanist they want to overpay for. Insane.
1
"Local hotels, restaurants, pollsters and television and radio stations have received millions of dollars in extra business."
As a SC native & resident, this is the #1 reason SC EVER became interested in a presidential primary which did not coincide with our local & state primaries - tourism in the slow season.
Tourism is a rotten to the core reason on which to base a presidential primary system.
We need regional primaries that mimic Super Tuesday.
And, primaries, with a concurrent debate season, do not need to start more than 6 months prior to the November election; be completed shortly before August conventions & a two month general election campaign.
18 -24 month long campaigns are killing the country.
1
Just don't make Virginia first. The demographics are fine, but who wants to have the place crawling with politicians for months on end every four years?
1
So, James Madison, how do you like the spectacle of the tyranny of the minority. I am no Founding Father, but I’ll take the tyranny of the majority any day over what the GOP has been doing to our country.
The politicians in smoke-filled rooms would never have nominated Trump. Perhaps it is the primary system itself and the lack of "super-delegates" that is the problem.
1
The emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire is a ridiculous notion. The time has come to put everything about voting more in line with the actual demographics of the country.
The year is now 2020, some things should be resigned to the dustbin of history. The Electoral College, Gerrymandering, and yes, the Iowa and New Hampshire first primaries.
Last I checked the population of the US is 72% Caucasian. The Democratic Party is obviously more diverse, but the point is to nominate someone who will win a majority.of Electoral College votes. All that argues for a preseason (IA, NH and SC) to kick out the wannabees and unelectable extremists.
1
I'd be willing to bet that if Biden were leading the Iowa and New Hampshire state polls right now, this article would never have been written.
1
The issue raised here is only the tip of the iceberg.
We still apportion 2 senators per state, even though it's no longer 13 of them; now it's almost 4 times that ... and the variance in population and economic influence among the 50 is far greater.
We still depend on the Electoral College, our crazy patchwork of caucuses and primaries, combined with the crazy rules the parties have on how they apportion delegates.
We still vote on Tuesdays for some stupid reason, rather than on Saturday or Sunday when far fewer people would have to leave work to vote.
And we don't mandate that citizens vote. In fact we actively discourage a significant percentage of voters from turning out.
Add all of these issues together and ask yourself: Is it any wonder our democratic republic is dysfunctional?
The nation and the world have changed in 245 years. We can't continue to live in the past.
See the change. Be the change. Vote.
Let’s give the heartland a chance with Bernie. We can work together to make this country normal and sane again, starting with healthcare for all.
If they prefer to continue destroying America with Trump instead, lesson learned and maybe time to go our separate ways. Countries are not meant to exist forever. We just can’t live in a libertarian nightmare.
3
Indeed. Iowa is a non-starter in Democratic Party politics except for its number one spot in the Dem primaries. This is an overwhelmingly Republican state. Except for the caucuses, Democrats are a political footnote in Iowa. Instead of a Iowa's and New Hampshire's one two primary ranking, how about a Texas California one two primary? These are two states that really matter to Democrats. Or GA, NC, PA, MI, WI or OH in the lead spots, states where getting out the Democratic message might count for something in November. It's ridiculous that candidates should waste so much time, effort and money in these two tiny Republican dominated states.
Just have one Primary Day - Superduper Tuesday.
Run all the primaries on the same day - the last Tuesday in January. One and done.
Pick the candidate, quit kvetching, and campaign.
Our system is insane. I’m a Romney Republican in The Bay Area, but I’m registered as a Democrat because the only chance I have at casting a ballot that matters is to participate in the CA democratic primary process. By the time that happens, even that vote means little because the early states carve the narrative the later ones follow.
My presidential ballot is never anything but symbolic (“Never Trump, but also never Sanders/Warren”, which I can do because my vote is useless).
Frankly, I don’t know why I even follow politics. It’s a system designed to mute my opinion. I’m just wasting my time.
1
David Leonhardt is absolutely right. All that is needed is a one sentence amendment to each state's elections code, in New York the Election Law: "The date for the election of delegates to a national convention to nominate persons for the office of President and Vice President of the United States shall be that date which is announced by the Iowa Secretary of State for the initial caucus of members of a political party for the purpose of electing delegates to a national, state, or county convention of such party in connection with such nominations."
Instead of waiting until April 28 to cast what may be a meaningless vote, imagine if New Yorkers could vote in a Presidential primary on February 3, the same day of the iowa caucuses!
1
Iowa is insignificant.
The Democratic Party should fix this situation.
The Iowa caucus is not a good indicator of the rest if the country.
1
Just one more example of a totally broken and non representative system that pretends to be a democracy, or a republic as you prefer, that represents the people. It's actually just as cooked as Putin's Russia, or Jinping's China. between the "electoral college", gerrymandering and legalized voter suppression, when do we stop pretending that this is anything but a system of, by and for the oligarchy...
Iowa's primary position is also making America fat.
Politicians are so eager to get Iowa votes that they agree to ridiculous corn subsidies.
Which ends up (among other things) leading to America's foods getting flooded with high fructose corn syrup.
Which ends up with the average American consuming 55 pounds of it per year.
3
How about a simultaneous, ranked choice primary across the whole country?
With instantaneous National media coverage it is possible for people in all states to get the same candidate information at the same time . No one state should ever get to go first!
1
The voting in Iowa and New Hampshire only have meaning because political hacks give it to them. Nobody can actually win the nomination with only the votes of these two tiny states.
Those same political hacks declared "winners" for every Democratic debate. They have to talk- they have 24 hour news programming to feed. Does that talking actually matter? According to the hacks and the polls in 2016, Clinton was set to win in a landslide.
I suggest every American citizen take their most precious civil right, their right to vote, to the polling station EVERY time there is any primary or election in their district.
Because there is a minority of Americans who know how to spin the elections to their own minority point of view. And their best weapons are 24 hour chattering heads and voter apathy. Shut out the sound of the chattering heads (of every political persuasion) and VOTE.
And who's fanatically and obsessively covering these primaries...
Telling us heaven and earth will tilt differently, depending on which old person gets 24, 22, and 21 percent of the vote...
1
I have thought this for years. Iowa and NH go first because they are what America used to be like. A hundred year ago.
1
What is more bizarre is that anyone would care how the Democratic primary in SC turns out.
SC is never going to vote Democratic but there is a definite possibility that IA and NH may. So how those states voters choose has real significance in the Electoral College.
Like it or not White people still make up a significant majority in this country and no Democrat can win without significant White support.
If any candidate no matter their race or sex cannot withstand a loss in IA or NH because of a "media narrative" and cannot continue a viable campaign they should not have been in the race in the first place.
Mr.Leonhardt, I hate to tell you that a ground game, enthusiasm and organization are far more important than the media narrative.
Politics is a blood sport and there are no participation prizes.
Sure it makes a lot of sense to have two low population, mostly white states, go to the head of the line, and set the trajectory for the Democratic parties nominee.
I see the Iowa caucus and the run up to it through the summer state fairs as a caricature of a political race. How many corn dogs are eaten? How many pictures of the candidates with the butter sculpture are taken? There is this hayseed “The Music Man” mentality projected to the rest of the country about Iowa. We should have voting or caucuses done on the same five “super Sundays” throughout the country and use ranked voting to select candidates.
It's not white privilege; it's idealizing middle America and, therefore, denigrating the citizens of big states. Somehow flyover country came to represent the "real" America. So exalted are these states, that every voter there has the voting power of 100+ voters in California and New York. This is all a holdover from pre-Civil War America that protected slave states so they wouldn't have a temper tantrum and leave the Union. Enough is enough. Every big state should fracture into smaller states the size of Wyoming. Have 600 states all with the same population and then see how much anyone gives a darn about the Iowa Caucuses.
2
This Acela Village panic at the prospect of a Sanders candidacy is getting out of hand. Have you forgotten the elite nuclear option, the independent Bloomberg run? Or has the folly of that become apparent enough for even you folks to notice? The US needs less self obsessed, navel gazing elites who are more willing to engage with the majority of the populace. But that’s just me.
It is brutally unfair that the same (demographically unrepresentative) states go first every time.
We must rotate who goes first. Enough is enough.
2
Agreed! Iowa DOES NOT represent America. How did they become King of politics. I listen to them supporting candidates who can not win or beat Trump. What are they thinking? They have hijacked the process and this is as bad as the electoral college.
We are tired of the non-stop presidential campaign. The 2020 campaign started here in 2016. We get 15 phone calls a day. If you watch tv there are 5 campaign ads in a row. Some other state can have these political consultants.
1
I’ve always thought the caucus system is highly unfair, eliminating everyone who has a night job, to those who lack transportation, to the handicapped. We need to have primary elections with early voting (weekends) in every state, and have all the primaries during a week or 10 day period. Have the candidates rush around and visit all of us! Think how exiting that could be...think of the turnout!
Idea: All states have primary/caucus on the same day.
if you want to start with one state, Illinois is the closest match to the US as a whole by many measures.
The election process is flawed because of slaveholders. While all dead now ;they haunt us in territorial states that joined the Union as slave or no slave communities.
Our assignment this week is to quickly research “ Westward expansion “ and the civil war.
The Electoral College and state traditions are allowing an Oligarchic Autocracy to continue unabated .
This crazy quilt process is destroying a cohesive America.
This is an outcome of republican rogues orchestration since the last Gilded Age and 20th century WARS and Gingrich and Reagan robbing us of our social fabric and values.
Trump is simply a Russophile aligning us with Putin for his future takeover of the Western Hemisphere. They are mortal and plan on familial lineage to continue.
A new Epoch is ushered in. History will write about this time. None of us will even imagine the horrors until then. But not for us ..... for our great grandkids.
1
No matter which State goes first there will be accusations of rigging, influence and harm to the process. That we now have to consider that Iowa, an otherwise sleepy state in our Union, has undue influence over the democratic process, and is yet another example of "white privilege" is, frankly, exhausting and largely without merit. Mr. Leonhardt only proves two things in this column - and that is (1) that nothing political, social or economic is out-of-bounds in the social justice war and (2) that pundits and journalists will make inane arguments like this one if it means burnishing their social justice credentials. The result, unfortunately, is that we end up further apart than closer together, which is a shame.
Part of the problem is yours, NY Times, and all the other media that treat the race like, well, a horse race, instead of writing about the candidates' positions on important matters that will affect all of our futures.
Your writing is all about polls and "momentum". It's easy. I could do a 4 graph piece on the latest Monmouth poll. Why aren't you holding candidates' feet to the fire about their plans? Why didn't you press Trump on his grandiose and unfilled promises to rebuild our infrastructure and deliver a better national health care plan?
I agree that Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't be first - but it wouldn't matter if you treated the election less like sportscasters and more like, well, reporters.
1
"I also want to use this moment to point out how bizarre the current system is"--this quote sums it up.
1
It matters very little which state holds its primaries first. Maybe the states feel they get attention and some economic activity. But otherwise it is irrelevant.
The problem is the media mob and their hysteria. Do we really need to watch and hear every interaction of every candidate at every coffee shop? Why do we need so many reporters out there wasting money and getting in the way of the actual process? What is the value of these polls?
If you really care Mr. Leonhardt, you would ask your colleagues to spend their polling budget on asking people what issues matter to them most. Categorize them by region, demographic, etc etc... and then show the voters what each candidate has to say on these issues important to the voters. See what kind of results you get from that.
It is not the high-drama or the mawkish nonsense that is standard fare of campaign news coverage. But it is useful for the people and the process of democracy.
Trump is an awful guy, everyone knows it. Yet when he says "Fake News" it sticks. Wonder why that is so?
We live in the Republic of the United States of America - a republic that is confederation of states.
I am so tired of know-it-alls from elitist bulwarks that see themselves as the epicenter of America (nay, often the world) dictating how the rest of the country should conduct itself. Yes, that means you David Leonhardt - as well as most commenters to NYT's articles.
The endless dictates of the smug, cosseted elitist on our two coasts on the left and the right are why our country has been sold out to China et al. It's also why so many economically challenged Americans are scared and angry. Stop with this checking the boxes nonsense on race, gender, diversity, etc. and start listening to and understanding the pain of the Americans outside your bubble-sphere. If you don't, Trump is cake walking to victory.
I live in Illinois, and our primary is not until the middle of March, after Super Tuesday. Who will be left standing?
I was born and raised in Iowa, in Steve King's district, and I couldn't agree more. It all started with Jimmy Carter, who practically lived there...and it propelled him to victory. Now, every serious candidate has to literally shake the hands of most interested Iowans. How many qualified candidates does that deter?
But there's a larger problem: the length of the campaign. Once it gets into full swing, it lasts two years. And a year before that, there's constant, serious talk, which begins six months before that.
No other country in history has been subjected to this idiocy. Why do we have to be the first?
1
Generally agree and the process is too long.But sanders is leading with Latino voters
Do not forget that New Hampshire - yes Vermont's ill-educated, even delusional, cousin to the East - voted for George W. Bush. Without those 3 votes Florida would not have mattered in the 200 election. Our long national nightmare was due entirely to those "good people" of New Hampshire.
You can blame many people for the horrible things that Bush and Cheney did. The thousands and thousands of lives lost and millions of lives destroyed. The wreck made in the Middle East particularly in Iraq and Syria. And the trillion-dollar budget deficits. Oh yeah, and the Great Recession.
But we in Vermont know precisely who was responsible for giving the keys to the White House to the worst president in American history (before Trump came along and set the new standard).
It was New Hampshire. New Hampshire destroyed America and now they preferential treatment - again - as we pick another president.
Except for the White Mountains - which should all be located in Maine - New Hampshire is nothing but an aging strip mall full of payday loans and liquor stores.
I actually think New Hampshire should be stripped of statehood, incorporated into Massachusetts where it belongs, and Washington D.C allowed to become the 50th state.
Now about Iowa...
2
We should have a one day national primary. Why drag it out. Let’s all vote and get it over with.
Every time I hear the words white privilege from someone who is extremely privileged, and white, I know I'm hearing from the elite. For that reason alone we should keep Iowa as the first state to caucus.
David, you are so right. The present arrangement that allows two tiny states to shape the future of our nation is absurd.
I would suggest just four primary days. The state selections for each of the four groups would rotate based on a lottery arrangement. And each primary group would be balanced in terms of geography, demographics, size of cities, etc.
Whatever the new system becomes, it should be controlled at the national level - it's a national election!
If we do that and get enough states to sign on to the "National Popular Vote"...we would be looking at democracy again.
Eliminate partisan gerrymandering and fund election with public money only and then we are talking about serious democracy!
The cherry on this ice cream sundae I just created would be the use of "ranked choice voting". True democracy that allows folks to vote for a minor candidate but have their second and/or third choice count! You could vote green or wingnut for your conscience and help the best candidate win simultaneously. No more spoiling by third party candidates - but they can still gather support.
You could have voted for Perot or Nader or Johnson or Stein and not have made a mess of things. Your thinking would be displayed. But you wouldn't have been a contributor to the horrors that followed those elections.
Delicious, eh?
You made a fundamental data error when choosing to compare Iowa's demographic breakdown to the USA as a whole instead of comparing it to what the median state's demographic breakdown looks like. Only 9 states have Hispanic populations of at least 18% of the total state population while there are 32 states with 10% or less.
Iowa will go first.
Every election someone whines about it.
And every election, Iowa goes first.
What a waste of time, energy, and resources the candidates must expend catering to this fickle group of people, and after all that, many still haven't made up their minds. To watch the polling figures careen wildly from week to week convinces me that Iowans could achieve the same results by rolling a die.
Obama partially won because of his "Good Ole' Midwestern Roots".
Another aspect not brought up iin this article is that candidates from "The Heartland" can be favored or biased toward every time around.
The primary process is way too long, as are the campaigns. We need to limit all campaigning, all rallies, all politicking to a few months before the election. The length of the process, all the money spent, especially that going to advertise on tv, does harm. Get money out of politics, get politics off tv which is as harmful as social media, and has brought us to the point where we have a president who is television addiction personified. Corporate media is big brother, and they are very sick with greed, money is the root of all evil.
I agree. White privilege. Something that only whites fail to understand. The first 2 states should be ones with the most diverse populations. Iowa and New Hampshire are relics of past thinking, and it seems to me, a way to preserve white privilege in a country that will soon be non-white majority. That day can't come too soon, no matter how strenuously "conservatives" try to maintain the irrelevant old status quo. One might even refer to them as delusional. Enough already.
Hey! Let’s just go back where the party bigwigs choose their candidates behind closed doors and like in pope selections have a chimney either show black or white smoke to signal progress.
Benefits: short selection season, little campaign money spent.
1
Iowa voters, 91% of whom are white, elected Steve King to congress since 2003.
New Hampshire voters, 94% of whom are white elected Werner Horn (who wrote that slavery was not racist) as state rep.
The emphasis on Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries is structural racism masquerading as tradition.
1
How about holding the first primaries in either some of the first 5 states admitted to the Union or some of the last 5 states admitted?
First 5: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut
Last 5: Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma
Tired of hearing about Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Democratic National Committee and should simply boycott participating in Iowa New Hampshire farce fests. As for the Republicans, Iowa and New Hampshire represent their core constituencies!
There are many important issues to deal with nowadays, like the U.S. Constitution becoming worthless. Apologies, but whether Iowa and New Hampshire vote first comes close to a non-issue.
Of note is that racism is running rampant in a country that has only a 12% African American population, and an 18% Latino population. The article does not mention the number in each group eligible to vote.
The point being, unless a person lives in large city and has a lot of experience working with and befriending other ethnic groups, America does look like Iowa.
The NYT endorsed candidates, Warren and Klobachar, are trailing in Iowa and New Hampshire. But it may not be optimal in 2020 for the NYT to again ignore Sanders, who also polled in first place in 2016. The Times didn't like his age, and one editor worried about his health. No one mentioned that he is the architect of the current Democratic party platform.
His support among Latinos is strong, and growing a lot among African Americans. If the complaint in this article is based on U.S. demographics, Sanders will surely appoint a Cabinet that resembles that of the U.S. population, and enact fair policies for all Americans.
1
Iowa does have consequences. Have any of the environmentally correct Democratic candidates come out against the ridiculous ethanol subsidies?
1
The arbitrary circumstances of history are a better way to stagger the primaries than liberal journalists or Democrat elites picking the order in order to put a thumb on the scale of our democracy.
Because such conniving is intentionally designed to bias the results. Which is more scary than the current framework.
1
Better yet, get rid of this outdated electoral system and just have nationwide primaries/general elections. Sad that people's voices are not heard because of some arbitrary state lines.
Such a system should raise concerns when a popular vote defeat (66M vs. 63M) leads to landslide electoral wins where all three branches. Too bad it seems like just a pipe dream.
Well, shoot. We have a blast with the caucus. It's wonderful to see all the candidates in person. It's exciting to have all their dedicated supporters coming to the front door. The mailbox is always full of beautiful flyers. People here in Iowa come home early from vacation in order to participate in the big night--seriously, they do. Well, nothing lasts forever and I do see your point. But, gosh, I'll be sad to see it go.
PS--We can't really help being old and white, so please quit dissing us on this point. It's the winters. Anyone with any sense and who's still mobile has already left.
92
@C. Parker One
Considering all those old folks tottering to the caucuses in the cold, Iowans might improve the turnout by scheduling them earlier in the day and later in the year - March or April perhaps. Or, Iowans could dispense with them altogether and run primaries after the frost has left the cornfields. Granted, as you settle in with the rest of us, you might be forgotten. But who needs all the noise and hoopla anyway, certainly not sturdy, self-effacing Iowans. Take it from this old white guy - at times, being ignored can be a blessing!
5
@C. Parker
don't count yourself out yet!
1
I'm a voter of color in Iowa, who moved here from L.A. I don't think the system is perfect, but I really don't understand the vitriol leveled at the people here. I like the idea of rotating small-state primaries in the early slot; why not leave it at that? Why the demand that Iowa never be allowed to be part of that pool?
For all the doomsayers about the potential pernicious influence of Iowa's white voters on this year's caucus, let's not forget that Barack Obama was considered a non-contender until he won in Iowa, while Donald Trump lost to Ted Cruz in his Iowa caucus bid—and then won in states like New Jersey, New Mexico, Indiana, and Louisiana.
As long the Midwest has undue influence on the outcome of the general election due to the Electoral College, I do not have a serious problem with Iowa going first. Above all else, the Democrats need a candidate that can beat Trump in the Midwest swing states. I think Iowa voters are more likely to select such a candidate than voters in other regions of the country.
20
@Joyce this “Midwest” narrative is part of the problem. There are much larger swing states that are largely being ignored to the Democrats detriment. Florida has the same number of electoral votes as several Midwest states combined, yet it almost seems as though the Dems are giving trump a “gimme” (and virtual guarantee of another win) by all the focus on the non-diverse Midwest with their same old rust belt narrative. Also consider states like Arizona, Nevada, Virginia and others as swing states that are more representative of the nation’s ethnic makeup. I really wish the media would stop being so myopic with its constant chronicling of midwestern white man woes.
71
A national primary Election Day would solve all the problems articulated by David. No state would get preference; there would be no need for a “rotation”. Also, a national primary day would favor the candidate with the best organization, as well as the best message.
1
Maybe pick three Super Tuesdays, divide states in thirds and rotate first Tuesday voting states? Nothing will be perfect. We can make arguments for or against a variety of states having early primary privileges. Rotation would at least end the “we must be first” perpetual lockout that exists today. I live in California. For decades we were among the last primary states and our votes in June were meaningless. The eventual nominee was always well known at that point.
I would add that the primaries are big business for media too. The boys and girls on the bus can get bored with stump speeches, same thing day after day. I think that’s how we wind up with so many “insider” campaign stories. I’d much rather those journalists dig deep into the candidates finances, track dark money, learn more about voter suppression, manipulation and state voting technologies. Stunning that the NYT got a Pulitzer for Trump’s financials long after he got elected. Obviously that research should have been done long before he won the Republican nomination! But everyone was mesmerized by Trump’s antics and idiotic tweets. We all got played.
48
@Barbara Grob
California did make the difference for the Democrats
in 1968, when Bobby won California.
3
"The residents of New Jersey, New Mexico, Indiana, Louisiana and other late-voting states somehow aren’t sufficiently civic-minded or intelligent to choose their own presidential candidates?"
Can't speak for the other 3 states, but NJ voting Phil Murphy for governor and Robert Menendez for senator certainly speaks to voter intelligence and not in a positive way.
I nominate Missouri to go first. It has an ethnically diverse population that more closely matches the nation and it is geographically in the middle of the country with urban and rural populations.
9
It is helpful to have smaller states first where the candidates can meet people mostly by holding meetings in their living rooms instead of mass advertising. But to counter two white, rural states, how about replacing them with DC (urban, mostly non-white), Massachusetts (more urban and diverse), or Hawaii (also mostly urban and diverse).
I live in Iowa and I agree. My proposal would be to have a Super Tuesday format every month. Where there is only one day each month in which primaries are held
This is so predictable, however, I would be willing to bet the only reason that Iowa Is a problem NOW is because the MSM's "flavors of the month" don't look like they are going to win and Bernie just might.
Frankly, I look at a state that in its caucuses ultimately, is probably the most democratic way of choosing the candidate, unlike the last democratic primary where a candidate could actually win the primary, but, lose it to delegates whom despite the result could still choose the "loser" anyway.
1
It's long past time for a national primary. And much later in the calendar, perhaps the end of May. At the earliest.
2
I don't think it is fair that any particular state go first. new Hampshire can pass all the laws they want, but New York or Florida could also pass a law that their primary has to be held on the same day as new Hampshire.
Imagine if all the primaries were the same day. Gee, the media would hate that. Lets put blame where it is due.
2
People would be scandalized if anyone suggested that Utah be the first to hold its primaries. It has 3.5 million people, mostly living in cities along the Wasatch Front (North).
According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Utah was:
White: 86.43%
Other race: 5.19%
Two or more races: 2.95%
Asian: 2.29%
Black or African American: 1.18%
Native American: 1.07%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.89%
Although I am Caucasian, I belong to "other race".
What other "prejudices" would play here in the primaries: LDS or other?
You decide if you would like Utah to be the "decider" on party candidates.
I think that having all states hold primaries the same day, would be a better way. Let candidates roam the country, like Bloomberg is doing, and let states decide.
I am nearly a life-long resident of Iowa and I while a plan to participate in the upcoming caucus, I must totally agree with you. The idea that Iowa and New Hampshire should lead the pack is totally flawed, and the caucus process is a joke. It really comes down to money. It is an economic boom to Iowa that many would oppose ending.
The ultimate solution to this problem is to do away with the Electoral College and elect our President by popular vote. Then instead of having state-by-state primaries or a caucus, we would first have a national primary. Some might complain that we would just be a fly-over state with little attention given by our national politicians, but in reality that is already true once they obtain their office. In the end, it might help to get the Farm ("Welfare") Program under control as well.
3
What would it take for the DNC to make all of the states’ primaries the same day?? And can we please stop giving polls so much importance?? They make our elections into horse races and influence people’s votes, when individuals should be considering their votes based on their understanding of issues. The media spend way too much time talking about poll results — who cares how your neighbors or fellow citizens several states over plan to vote?? — when it would serve us all better if they spent their resources, airtime and column inches on the reporting of pressing issues. We should look to other countries, which have public financing for campaigns and limits for expenditures in ads and air time (eliminating the possibility of billionaires squashing rivals by outspending them)... The current system is clearly broken.
1
There are the usual cries of "change the system!".
What system? The only thing we have that claims to be a system is the Federal Interstate Highway System, and even that is done 50 different ways. Among the systems we don't have, nationally, are health, education, welfare, roads, bridges, and yes, elections.
Most of these reformers want to abolish Federalism, which will be music to the ears of certain people. Believe me, if you think a single ruling junta is better than 50 states of various degrees of competence, you have another think coming.
2
As one who spends half the year on an iowa farm and the other half in coastal Florida, it would be hard to disagree, however the greater problem is the primary system itself which creates difficult hurdles for any candidate and rarely nominates the best one. It should be junked and just go back to true national convention nominating.
This would imperil all the favors farmers get from Washington and threaten the ethanol industry and so proposed changes for Iowans is a hard sell.
i agree that Iowa and NH are not representative, however, the whole process has turned into a circus. It starts too early; it eliminates viable candidates before a vote is even cast; billionaires are the only ones who have enough money to last a year and a half campaigning, There should be 5 or 6 regional primaries starting in March, with conventions at the end of summer. Most important, the electors in the College should be chosen by congressional district, not winner take all; that way many more states become battleground states, and elections would be more democratic.
1
100% this. This should have already been done.
One possibility on why it hasn't that didn't get mentioned here, is that these two states also benefit from that ol' chestnut that we as democrats need to make sure we appeal to "moderate" or "independent" or "undecided" (read: center-right) voters and this is a built-in way to make sure that happens (read: to make sure those voters continue to have outsize influence).
1
Rumor has it that Punxsutawney Phil believes in maintaining the status quo yet also believes the Electoral College must be eliminated. If you don't believe me, just ask him next Sunday.
No we're not representative of the US demographics, but we Democrats do know how to choose a candidate. Although we are very white, I was amazed at Obama's success--in our precinct we had over 500 people show up and a lot of them were registered Republicans who changed parties to vote for Obama. And they weren't messing with the electoral system--they genuinely liked Obama.
Iowa, like New Hampshire, is accessible and a cheap campaign can result in selecting a candidate--as we did with Jimmy Carter. With our three million Iowans, we can do what's hard to do in a very populous state. We get the candidates in our living rooms, look at them eye to eye and size them up.
And we take this very seriously. As snowbirds, we'll be driving three hours to Port Charlotte, Florida to caucus with other Iowans. As the Iowa Democratic website states: "From Paris to Palm Springs, Iowans will be caucusing..."
I'd like to see other states match Iowa's record in selecting a candidate and our citizenship values.
2
Sometimes history and tradition are simply a good reason for why things are. Me. Leonhardt unfortunately, continues to look for any reason to promote changes that might sway results in his favor.
1
"Consider that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris were doing as well as Amy Klobuchar in early polls of more diverse states; they led Pete Buttigieg in some polls. "
Correct me if I am wrong, but what is so exciting in the choice between Booker and Buttigieg, or Klobuchar and Harris? What national policies will be affected? Sure, there is ethanol, but that is a relatively obscure issue. A more real problem in selecting policies is the disparity of what most affluent want and the less affluent, i.e. "money primary". Starting with small states gives candidates who either lack or shun the support big donors more chance to present their case. And since they do not provide much votes at the Convention, candidates running against the particular interests of Iowa and New Hampshire have all chances in the world to present their case elsewhere, like Bloomberg.
1
The only reason these two states get such lopsided influence is the media - plain and simple. Stop the endless coverage of these first two primaries and instead focus on, oh, I don't know, maybe super Tuesday where a third of the population will vote.
2
Flawed as it was - and it was badly flawed, with back-room deals being made - the old convention process, requiring a presidential candidate to get two-thirds of the states’ roll-call votes, was preferable. Each state’s delegates fought things out among themselves and unified behind someone, the way 12-person juries are supposed to do. That leveled the playing field, within and among the 50 states. It unified the parties, albeit sometimes after a convention-floor battle.
Today, unlike back then (before the old convention system’s decline, from 1972 to 1988), back-room deals would get exposed. In other words, the main criticism of that old approach is no longer applicable: nontransparency couldn’t happen today. Tweets and investigative reporting would make sure of that.
The convention system’s decline paralleled the buying of primary voters’ votes, especially in the early primaries. It’s a case of where a correlation DOES imply causation: when the old convention system began to crumble, Big Money took over. It’s time to bring back the old system.
1
It is a difficult situation for the candidates. Do they waste campaign money in IA & NH, or focus on other states? The way the selection rules for who gets a spot on the debate stage shows how impossible it is for a candidate with limited resources to catch fire. If we had all the primaries/caucuses on the same day, would that be more fair to the process of selecting a candidate? Is it fair that a candidate with unlimited money can enter the field, and perhaps win the nomination despite not even running in IA & NH - as Bloomberg is now doing.
Just as with most of the problems with our political process, I'm not expecting any thing to change any time soon. What a difference it would make if we changed the process of voting to enable everyone to vote easily, and got rid of the electoral college too.
Having the initial primaries in larger states will insure that only well known, wealthy candidates will advance. Large states have a significant influence on the eventual nominee. In 2016 despite Bernie handily beating Hillary in NH, the influence of the Democrat establishment support of Hillary (including almost daily Krugman “Bernie Bros” diatribes against Sanders) gave the NY metro area to Clinton, who could not carry the rest of the country.
3
Leonhardt points out how bizarre the current system is but his "solution" is bizarre, too! Every section of the country should have the chance to be "first" in the nation to pick the Democratic candidate for president, not just one designated state. By dividing the nation into 4 or more sections from north to south, based on equal populations, these sections would then be rotated each national election. For instance, the Maine- Florida- Puerto Rico section would be first for one election rotating across the nation though different sections until the Washington-Oregon- California section would be first. Then the rotation would start again.
1
Since 1976, Iowa has picked six of the past eight Democratic nominees. The press should stop repeating this ad nauseum as an indicator of what will come to pass this year. It only serves to reinforce in the public's minds the importance of the Iowa caucuses in finding a final winner.
1
If we had a responsible press, this issue would have been resolved long ago. The only thing that distorts the significance is the coverage.
1
Not only should we stop letting Iowa and New Hampshire go first, I also believe we should do away with the caucus entirely. I vowed to never vote again until the system ended in Virginia, and now it is gone, thank goodness. It makes no sense for the candidates to spend so much time in these two states. I would prefer a nationwide primary that would have all states vote on the same day. Lets simplify things for voters AND candidates, please.
1
Mr. Leonhardt proposed a reasonable way to mitigate the problem: by rotating which states hold their primaries first.
I'd like to take it further: Is there a reason that all states' primaries can't be held on the same day?
1
How about we abolish the affiliation of Presidential candidates with political parties altogether? The tribal executive seems antithetical to American values of shared brotherhood in the ideals of our dream.
1
I'm surprised that Leonhardt did not mention that Iowa and NH Democratic voter populations are also sharply skewed by ideology. That is, both are considerably more left-leaning than the Democratic electorate as a whole. This is especially true of Iowa, because the people willing to turn out for a caucus for several hours on an evening are more activist.
While I agree with Leonhardt that these two states always going first is deeply unfair and seriously distorts our politics. It has been decades since anyone cared about the outcome of the New York primary due to this distortion. But I don't agree that it was responsible this year for Harris's or Booker's failure to gain traction. Neither of these candidates ever gained much support in South Carolina either, and neither was able to sustain competitiveness in national polls.
1
Not only is the Iowa caucuses outmoded it denies the fundamental problem of the current election. If democrats wanted to win this election they need to pick a front runner more than year ago, a non-politician candidate. None of the current dem candidates can win, for each of their various reasons. The Iowa problem is that it makes it seem like time is on our side. Quite the opposite is true. Time is up.
It's sad to think that only a celebrity could win against Trump. I see no other solution and that ship has sailed.
Trump won the last election because of exactly the same dynamics: Americans think their vote is special and that they can neuroticize the choice of a candidate.
Yes indeed, you are right on the mark Mr. Leonhardt. Excellent point.
Both Iowa & New Hampshire are "completely lacking in cities with more than 250,000 residents".
There are more residents living in the two Boroughs of NYC, Queens - over 2.3 million & Brooklyn - over 2.5 million than the total population of Iowa & New Hampshire combined which may be slightly over 4 million.
Why do so few people in Iowa & New Hampshire get to decide the candidates?
How fair is that to the rest of our country?
And, while we're at it - let's get rid of the electoral college.
Time for a huge change!
3
I live in Minnesota and have already voted in our primary.
None of the candidates or the media horse race watchers seem to care.
2
As somehow who works in NH for a NH Ivy league institution I can say it certainly provides massive tangible benefits to the state. Alas in this case it is a zero-sum game- one state's benefit is another's loss. Having primaries vary randomly would be a much more democratic method and would encourage more involvement in our political system. That would on average benefit more people than the current one. The current system is a bit like slavery- pretty much everyone knew it was wrong but slave holders had no desire or incentive to end the system. The current system arguably hurts our democracy as it shows that we're far from a true democracy.
When Obama was elected, there was no complaining. No attacking the legitimacy of Iowa being the first state to caucus. Then Trump was elected, now there is a huge problem with the electoral college and who caucuses first or who holds the first primary. The population of Iowa does not reflect the proportion of non whites across the country and there are more elderly people there than people in their 20's. They don't tell you that Iowa caucuses have had a 55% success rate at predicting which Democrat, and a 43% success rate at predicting which Republican will go on to win the nomination of their political party for president at that party's national convention.
As a commenter already said, the campaign season is ludicrously too long. I don't care to spend the time listening to and studying the emanations of a bunch of candidates. I like to pace myself, save my energy for the general election, not expend too much on the primaries (preliminaries). I liked the old smoke-filled rooms out of which came the parties' candidates; given the two, then I chose. Picking presidents by their glamor (JFK), or their charm (Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) I find rather risky. Give me a pragmatist who will mostly follow the party platform. I liked Cory Booker; there are no doubt others but, being from NJ, I'm familiar with his resume.
1
Prime example of parts of the system that needs changing. The whole electoral college was put in place in a time of, well, less that instantaneous communication. The unneeded structure just seems to exist for grifters, or their hired agents, to exploit and subvert the popular will.
2
If Iowa and New Hampshire are relegated to the back of the pack what is the alternative? If Super Tuesday becomes the first primary or perhaps (worse in my opinion) a single primary day where the nation votes all at once, does that produce a more diverse candidate? The amount of money needed to win a large scale election would almost ensure the wealthiest candidates and the most well known will prevail. We may be there already. If Bloomberg does well on Super Tuesday, after skipping the early states, the early small states could forever be irrelevant. Alas the chance for a relatively unknown or non rich candidate to win the nomination will be lost. Forget Obama, we will be stuck with the Hillarys and Bidens and Trumps forever.
2
I would choose a figure-head President by random lottery from a pool of all citizens who meet the Constitution's qualifications. The result could never be as bad as trump. That would prevent an election based on an agenda and every other discriminatory factor. It would also give every person a chance to be President. The real power would stay where it belongs, with the People and the Congress they elect.
1
I could not agree with you more. How does a State 90% white enjoy such such a position? 31% of Arizona is Hispanic. Maybe we should replace Iowa with Arizona, The Democratic party has not taken Iowa since Iowa President Wilson. However David, you are preaching to the choir on this on.
I completely agree. It's ridiculous that Iowa and New Hampshire, two rural states that are completely lacking in diversity and whose concerns are different than the majority of the population of this country, have such an outsized effect on our already gerrymandered political process. Enough already.
The irony of Iowa and New Hampshire leading the Democratic primaries is hard to miss. Both states would be political flotsam if the Democrats had their way, and eliminated the Electoral College.
3
@LTJ No, their votes would simply be equal to those of all other citizens.
1
None of the swing states are diverse.
Letting Republican or deep blue states go first creates it own set of problems, as the best hope to win the presidency is still to win the heartland swing states.
I do not see any problems with race. Iowa voted for Obama in 2008 with an overwhelming majority.
Julian Castro, Corey Booker and Kamala Harris disappointed in the debates. It's that simple.
Do not look for problems where there are none.
2
As a former, longtime Iowa newspaper editor, I get it. I also get countless mailers, an endless stream of repetitious TV commercials, calls and texts for close to a year. I wouldn't mind foisting that plague elsewhere. But the point you don't make is the cost for and accessibility to candidates in a bigger market. As for being diverse, Harris and Booker were a blip on the radar in South Carolina, which has a much larger African-American population. From the Iowa perspective, the debate criteria, national media buzz and candidates' ineptitude were bigger factors in winnowing the field, particularly with declining local media here (fewer reporters, readers). We take this seriously. Retail politics is alive. Those I know met a half-dozen candidates or more. Is that possible in a larger state? No. Will we be happy Feb. 4 when they all depart? Yes!
Maybe the best thing would be to have Super Tuesday be the first primary that counts. That way, an assortment of states would simultaneously cast their votes, and we'd get away from this localized campaigning.
1
I lived in NH for 20 years. Our first primary was the Jimmy Carter win in 1976. We enjoyed meeting all the candidates face-to-face many times. We had our candidate and worked hard on their behalf during the primaries.
The country has changed demographically and dramatically in 44 years. Its time the DNC and the RNC (though the Rs like white states) stop being bullied by Iowa and New Hampshire.
1
Rotate the primaries, no one state should be more "important" than any other..even better have all the primaries on one day, make it a holiday. Abolish the electoral college, install ranked choice voting, make voting day a national holiday. All good things. The more people vote, the more our representatives actually represent us.
6
Thank you for finally bringing this up. I live in Wisconsin and have been complaining about his for years. By the time April (Wisconsin's primary) rolls around, the field is pretty much set. We still vote but the choices are usually down to a couple of candidates. It should be a rotational system where every state gets a chance to be first. There are many ways to make this fair.
3
As I used to teach in my government class, one benefit of having the first primaries in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire is that it allows more candidates to entry the fray without committing large sums of money to media and travel, plus the opportunity for more one on one with voters. In the age of social media, I am not sure how that holds up. I would say that having the winnowing process early in small states is not necessarily a bad idea. I mean, 10-12 candidates is too many.
1
I prefer Iowa and New Hampshire to some other state whose politics is wrapped around promising goodies to special interest groups, like, oh, say, New York.
1
Apparently you didn't read the part about Iowa and the ethanol mandate.
A lottery system is the way to go. I've been in favor of that my entire adult life.
4
Of course the Electoral College is the biggest problem of the American political system, but the order of the primaries every 4 years is a close second. The states should be grouped into groups of about 10 with the first 10, the second 10, etc. Every 4 years the groups should be rotated so the first 10 to vote this year become the last 10 in 4 years. And caucuses should be outlawed. But the Republicans will block any change to this system because both the college and pearly white Iowa setting the stage for each presidential election benefit their cause for keeping older white men in power.
6
Why not just have a national primary? Like we have a national presidential vote. This year, to some extent, the debate process has been a bit of a national primary, although there is a poll tax in that people only get to “vote” if they contribute $ to one of the candidates. Another issue is that people have been able to vote for as many candidates as they like, as many times as they like. So how about a national debate process, that includes national surveys before and after each of several debates, and then one national primary in which the vote is weighted, so every voter can identify their top three candidates. Lots of analysis can surround and support and dissect the results, telling the stories of regional, state, urban, rural and/or suburban subsets during the pre-primary and primary, and for that matter for the final vote. This would be in the same spirit as the idea of a national vote for the president, rather than electoral college.
@c-c-g the order of the primaries are up to the political parties, not the government. it is not a law as is the outside electoral college. it is easy to fix if the dems want to do it
The process and electoral college work exactly as intended.
The US consists of 50 States, not just the populous ones and everyone else. Overrepresentation of the small States is the price we pay for the Union.
This is not too different from the EU, where small countries can veto legislation and compromises need to be made by the bigger countries. They too get frustrated when a country with less than 10 million people (e.g. Hungary) gets in the way of a broadly supported agenda. But they find ways and it's not always pretty (e.g. agricultural subsidies).
The solution for Democrats is to make their agenda more compatible with the heartland again. Losing the workers to Republicans, and in turn Republicans losing a lot of their moderates to Democrats is what has created the mess we're in today. Unless the city Democrats are willing to dial down the centrist agenda (free trade with low wage countries, deregulated markets, deunionized corporations, restricted healthcare, etc.), there is no way out of this. The country will just spiral out of control further, with Republicans tapping into the hate and misery of the left behind workers to pass their libertarian / iconoclastic agenda.
2
@Audrey C'mon, citizen, pull yourself into the 21st century. The Democrats CAN appeal in all the ways you demand, AND the electoral college could be made more fair.
This is exactly wrong: 'Overrepresentation of the small States is the price we pay for the Union.' We don't have to pay a price for the Union. We already paid it in blood during our civil war. The representation of EVERY AMERICAN is our goal, is it not? Then you have no argument against improving it.
1
@Audrey I agree the Founding Fathers intended this system to balance the interests of small states vs. large states, code for slave vs. free states. They never anticipated the great urban/rural divide that has resorted our population. A constitutional amendment to overturn the electoral college is unlikely, but individual states have the power to allocate their electoral votes and drop the winner takes all. Maine does that now. Again, this is a long term solution.
2
Hearing repeatedly that Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania are the due-or-die states this year, it seems ridiculous that Iowa and NH get to choose the candidate. A woman from Iowa this morning on NPR talked about how important her choice was... to Michigan?
Replacing IA and NH will not be easy unless you want to substitute money for privilege. Large diverse states like CA, NY, FL, e.g., have lots of ground to cover, multiple media markets, and no tradition of one-on-one retail politics. This puts a premium on media to reach voters and that means $$. The most prolific fundraisers of 2020 are Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and Bide, so you end up in the same place. We might consider starting in Colorado. It's large, but populated land is comparable to Iowa. It has representative racial and income demographics and is politically about as left of center as the party as a whole. Any where else you go after that will either involve representative but expensive (NY) replacing a white advantage with an African American advantage (SC, GA, DE, MD, VA) or slighting Hispanics (NC), overrepresenting Hispanics (NV, CA, TX). Perhaps the solution is to start in CO, then have two like IA + DE, then NV + SC + NH, then NY. Anyone winning all or most of those, would have broad appeal, would not be benefitted by white privilege, and would not be chosen by any particular racial or ethnic group, or by the money haul.
1
@G James I agree. Letting some small States go first and create momentum for candidates allows non-establishment backed candidates to have a chance by knocking on doors, so to speak.
Bigger States can only be won by mass marketing and name recognition, and without momentum, these type of candidates can't get into a position where people start to know them and money starts coming in for advertising budgets. Letting big States go first will reduce the field to candidates with high name recognition to begin with and billionaires.
1
The problem isn't just that those two states go first, it's how all the media including msnbc, CNN, and Fox cover it. The Times is also guilty.
Both states award a very small number of delegates, and very soon there will be ten times as many delegates awarded in California and Texas. It's like making a big deal of the score after one inning of a baseball game. There is also very little review of how meaningless Iowa results have been with that winner repeatedly not getting the nomination.
1
Let's be brutally honest. The only thing Iowa and New Hampshire have going for them is the white hot political spotlight that shines on these two states every four years. Once the caucuses and primaries are over, none of us care about these backwaters. Neither party has the courage to strip these tiny states of their outsized influence, so we'll be reading this exact same column in 2024.
3
having Iowa and New Hampshire first is fine for the Republican Party, as the white electorates in those states are in line with Republican demographics. But for our diverse party, the outsize influence of the all-white populations of IA and NH is racist and unacceptable. Leonhardt is correct. The Democratic Party has the clout to send New Hampshire to the back of the line, and it's high time that we exercise it.
Wrong! The National Democratic Party and national debates and polls thinned the candidates way before the Iowa race. Don’t blame Iowa for this! Iowa is one place where any and all candidates can make their case to and directly in front of the populace. Where did Candidate Obama get his first dominant endorsement? - - - us white voters in the Iowa caucus!!
5
What strikes me as absurd is that states that will never vote blue get as much say on the nominee as states that will. Who cares which Dem Texas wants to nominate. That's basically like letting the Republicans pick your candidate for you. Not very smart.
1
Here's a novel thought. Let people who want to join political parties pay actual money and sign membership cards. Make sure they've been paid up members in good standing for at least a year before delegate selection occurs to ensure that the members have a real interest int he party. Then let each congressional district hold a delegate selection meeting to chose their representatives to a nominating convention. Then let the delegates choose the nominee.
This is going to be way quicker and way cheaper and, surprisingly, will end up with a nominee that has demonstrated leadership abilities because this type of one-on-one focussed campaign will sort out the riff-raff and the hangers-on who only have money to throw at the challenge.
1
America is in the prison of its own history, with no way out, living in the past.
6
So Iowa and New Hampshire somehow have “ordinary “ citizens and big states don’t? I lived in California for most of my life, and I’m a pretty ordinary person. In fact, everyone I knew was an ordinary person. What a ridiculous claim for voting first.
2
Heaven knows why the candidates spend so much time and money in these 2 states. I don't blame Iowa or New Hampshire; they know chumps when they see them.
1
I attended college in Iowa and my first voting experience was in a Democratic primary caucus. Due the snowy, cold weather that night five of us showed up for three candidates. Two of us were for one candidate, two for the other, and one person for the third. After what seemed like hours of arguing, we agreed to have one delegate for each person. I had to agree to be the third candidate's delegate because the person who wanted him would not agree to give up the delegate or be the delegate. I couldn't believe what a stupid waste of time I felt the whole thing was. I was graduating in the spring, but I can say it would have taken a lot to get me to back to another caucus had I stayed in Iowa. Every general election since then, I just cringe thinking about my caucus experience. Iowa should never be the first state. Of course Sanders is leading in Iowa. Young college students like I was then will fight to the death for anything, just like I did then, especially if their first class isn't until noon.
3
If Biden was winning in Iowa Leonhardt would not have written this article. But since Biden is crumbling fast and Bernie is leading he therefore felt compelled to write this article. The whole idea of Bidens campaign is that he is the only one to beat Trump - policies are not talked about - but now that premise is being shown to be false.
2
I'm sorry but letting a bunch pig farmers from Iowa and malcontents from the east coast decide who the front runners in our national election are is, excuses the pun, Hog Wash. You know what hog wash is. Look it up.
Lets see, CA makes up a overwhelming portion of our economy, by some accounts, CA is the third largest economy in the world. TX, a big, up and coming economy in it's self. Eastern seaboard states like say, New York maybe? All of these states better represent the America I know and want to be a part of than Iowa and New Hampshire. No way in any universe should these folks have such an outsized role in our elections. The Iowa caucus has brought us Ethanol subsidies. A poor use of money and food crops by any standard. Do we believe any of that would be in play if Iowa held the place in the primary calendar it deserves? I think not.
This silliness needs to end. In fact, I think we should just have a national primary for both parties, can the electoral college and may the best person win based on popular vote. Clowns like the current occupant at 1300 would stand no chance of ever despoiling our country again.
1
Right on. Iowa is NOT representative of the US population; neither is NH. Candidates are forced to spend inordinately large % of their funds and time to curry low volume votes. This system is obsolete.
218
@nwposter
I agree that the system is obsolete but the truth is that Iowa and New Hampshire are the first and, as such, provides the first actual votes on the candidates. Whichever other state comes first, then that will become the bellweather. Doing all the primaries in the country on the same date would not only shrink the process but would likely be cheaper as well. Having a proportional allocation of delegates would help as well as would the proportional allocation of Electoral College votes.
5
@nwposter
Oh, so representation of the population is the point? Then let's find a State with a population that's 72.4% White, 16.3% Hispanic/Latino, 12.6% Black and 4.8% Asian, and let that State go first. Right? Because that's the only "fair" thing to do.
If people spent half as much time simply trying to be productive, rather than finding and focusing on fault in everything, what a grand world that would be.
3
@nwposter - please consider that less well-funded candidates get a more level playing field in both these states because of the retail nature of the process. democrats complain about people like bloomberg that can buy and election where large media states are in play but now complain about this as well. do we really want decisions dominated by tv and social media? i have a bigger problem in the nature of caucuses where many people aren't interested in listening to others pontificate or in sharing their own reasons for a particular vote. are you implying that the people of nh and iowa are too racist to make an intelligent decision? are south carolina and mississippi to be precluded from being first because they're too black?
3
Iowan here. Completely agree. And the electoral college should go, too.
5
Mr. Leonhardt - the primary schedule isn't the problem. YOU, and your fellow journalists are the problem! If the press would treat the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary for what they are (i.e., essentially meaningless, in terms of who most of the country wants to see as a presidential candidate) everything would be fine. But you and your colleagues want to report on a horse race, and want to make every two-point shift in the polls in Iowa or New Hampshire into some sort of seismic event. And Senators Harris and Booker aren't gone because they couldn't appeal to the white folk in Iowa and New Hampshire. They're gone because neither of them came up with a message that could appeal to a broad range of voters around the country.
233
@Gary how are journalists the problem? You choose to read the newspapers or watch the shows on tv reporting news that you want to watch. Every candidate has a website, where you can look up their positions on every issue under the sun. Or you can allow other people to tell you how to vote. Tell you what to think, when to think, etc.
Journalism is NOT the problem! Voters who don't care enough to find out what the candidates are all about is the problem. I do agree with you on one thing - there are far too many podcasts, tv shows, and weird websites out there that do influence people to believe in wild conspiracies and outright lies. It's really bad when the lies are coming out of the mouths of the politicians/candidate.
Get educated. Don't believe everything you read or hear, especially on Facebook. Facts - and the truth - do matter.
9
@Gary
What is interesting to note is that once the Iowa vote is
finished, the News Media ignores her in a rather stark fashion just like the ignore New Hampshire once the vote is in.
4
@LovesGermanShepherds
The problem is, they aren't journalists, these days, from any paper, any 'news' outlet, they are more akin to Instagram "influencers". Doesn't matter whether it is the NY Times or Fox News, while there are good journalists at many of these outlets, it is presented in a way to 'click' with the audience. So when the NY Times or Fox News or CNN makes a big deal about the NH primary or Iowa primary, when it takes up so much coverage, when pontificators ruminate on its meaning, they are basically telling people "this is serious news", "this is the future", and the really bad point, candidates get the idea that if Iowa doesn't like them, well, they are toast. Ted Cruz won in Iowa, what does that tell you about its real influence?
When presidential campaigns all happened in the year of the election (ie started in fall of the year before), having the current campaign schedule made sense, in the late fall candidates would focus on Iowa and NH, the n would campaign in the next states. These days, where the campaign starts 2 years before the election, it would make more sense to have a single primary on let's say April 1st.Candidates won't be able to 'move on', because all states will matter, and the winner of the primary is the winner of the primary. It also ends the nonsense that someone who doesn't do well in NH or Iowa can't get elected, make it one day, you are campaigning for every vote.
7
From what I have read, New Hampshire established its position as the first primary state in the late 1940s. It did so primarily to bring visitors and to call attention to the state at the time of year when there is little to attract visitors and tourists in contrast to winter (snow skiing), fall (leaf peeping and hunting), and summer (camping, hiking, fishing, boating).
1
I don't get the reasoning behind all this. Iowa parties run caucuses and at the end of a twisted process, nominate delegates to the national convention.
Thing is, nobody has to take any notice of that. Iowa doesn't control the process. They just jump up and down shouting "Us first!".
It's the media who mess it up. By covering the farrago in Iowa they lend it credibility. So the solution is to end coverage. Without that, Iowa, NH etc. go away.
Of course, if JFK hadn't used NH to kick start his campaign, we wouldn't be talking about this.
2
The media environment has changed dramatically in the last decade & I get the feeling going first doesn’t matter much anymore. It’ll be interesting to see if my instincts are right.
Is it possible that Klobuchar and Buttigieg are just more inspiring than Harris and Booker?
8
Maybe Puerto Rico should go first. But wait - they don't get to vote Presidential. Second best, try for a state with the most diverse population - should do the trick for Mr. Leonhardt.
Or we could get on with the real system that far-left Democrats have favored for some time — just let the citizens of NYC and LA County decide who will be president.
3
@Frank : That's a silly right-wing talking point. As a commentator on another column pointed out, California and New York State together are only about 52 million people out of a total U.S. population of 327 million.
Also, like a lot of Electoral College advocates who have not actually thought the matter through, you do not realize that it is only the EC that makes states relevant. It creates the FICTION of red and blue states, when all states are actually purple.
Just look at the county-by-county map of the 2016 results. Every single state has both red and blue areas. Every single state.
Whose fault is it that the Republicans are unable to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters the way they used to?
Interesting article, but in my humble opinion Iowa should go first because we are better than everyone else. Ha ha!
4
The disproportionate unfairness of Iowa is probably even a bit worse than described here. Iowa uses caucuses not primaries. Caucuses are not very democratic at all. I was a precinct captain here in Washington in 2016 when we still had caucuses. Before the caucuses I visited every home in my precinct. Of all of the elderly people whom I spoke to (folks 65 and older, about 100 in total), only one couple showed up. The vast majority of them were knowledgeable about the issues, had a clear favorite in the race, and expressed a strong desire to participate. They were well aware of how our caucuses worked, and virtually all of them commented on the physical difficulty of attending. At the caucus site (an urban elementary school) there was no convenient parking. The caucus involved hours of standing in hallways and elementary school classrooms. Similar patterns applied to other demographic categories, e.g., disabled people, people who must work on Saturdays, people with small children.
253
@Robert I’ll be a precinct captain on Feb. 3, but I agree that caucusing is a ridiculous way to choose candidates, as it excludes a lot of people from participating for all kinds of practical reasons, including the amount of time required to participate. In 2016 my wife and I spent 2 hours sitting on the floor at our caucus site and I drove home in a fury at the whole process. (I’ve lived in Iowa since 1985.)
38
@Robert absolutely agree with you. Many decades ago I did participate in an Iowa caucus, while a college student. Luckily my dorm had a guy that managed to get a lot of us registered to vote, and made sure we went to the caucus too. So we went to various spots in a large room, to support the candidate we wanted to vote for in the caucus. Tallies were taken on pieces of paper. It was time consuming, as we had to listen to a supporter of each candidate - thank God there were not 10 or more as there are today! It seemed to me to be a crazy process. Who tallied the votes? How do we know those tallies were accurately and honestly reported?
Most people do not participate in the Iowa caucus, due to bad weather, difficulty due to age, and the ridiculous amount of time it takes.
16
@Robert
Meant to say, "Caucuses are NOT very democratic at all."
7
The Iowa Caucus and Electoral college are relics that we need to dispense with. Iowa is in no way representative of the rest of the United States. Their political leanings, lack of diversity, older population, educational attainment and rural/suburban populations make them representative of - Iowa. No one else.
I would like to vote on the slate of candidates that we have now, not a slate that has thinned out because a candidate did not do well in Iowa. Iowa loves the business and all the attention. They pretend that they are somehow tuned into politics in a way that the rest of us are not. It is all just theater, they don’t know more that anyone else.
Is this their revenge for having only 6 Electoral College votes?
275
@Marie Actually, it's a huge benefit to the Iowa economy. People do take it seriously there. But like you I'm tired of never seeing candidates here in NJ, because well, why bother campaigning here? Our NJ primary is very late in the game.
I don't care who IA or NH nominates. I do wish that my vote had more weight, and I'm sad that Kamala Harris, someone I would like to have voted for, is already out of the race. Maybe I'll write in her name when the time comes.
2
Just make it a lottery. Pull names out of a hat. That way, the order will always be different - not just for first or second positions but for every position every 4 years.
1
All the primaries of every state should happen on the same day. The Electoral College needs to be eliminated. Citizens’ United must be repealed. A good start for a true democracy.......
2
First, I agree that the current system where two small, mostly white, states have an inordinate influence of determining who gets the nomination. I believe we ought to adopt a Primary Day, where all voters who are registered get to cast their votes for candidates, perhaps selecting a 1st choice and 2nd choice. Then the top 3 or 4 from each party get to run against each other for three months, and then another vote is taken, this time voters get only one choice, and the highest vote getters for each party become their nominee. But whatever the process, it needs to end the undue influence of states that vote earlier.
As an aside, I'd like to once again contest your characterization of Biden's so-called preference as the candidate most likely to beat Trump by "most voters". From the link in this article with the African-American tag name I found this:
"Results are similar among all those who report being registered. Among all leaned Democrats regardless of registration, though, the gap between Biden and Sanders becomes non-significant, 28 vs. 24 percent. That’s because Biden’s support skews older and older people are more apt to be registered."
Why doesn't the NYT make clear when it touts Biden's "strength" that it's based on polls that are of registered Democrats? When polls of ALL likely voters, regardless of party, are taken, Sanders is virtually tied with Biden. Maybe you should change your motto: "Some of the news that's fit to print".
3
Funny how Bernie Sanders threatening to win in both Iowa and New Hampshire sends white pundits into deep wokeness. I don't think Leonardt really wants California and Nevada, say, to be the first in the nation. If Biden was doing great in Iowa and New Hampshire, this piece would not have been written. But as center-right Dems do badly, their friends in the press are all about structural reform.
Also, Biden is doing anything but great with Latinx voters. https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/joe-biden-is-doing-terribly-among-latino-voters-who-will-be-key-in-2020-2019-12
3
You Bernie people often sound like Republicans. And I would vote for him should he win the nomination.
Why not rotate the early primaries among all the states? That would seem to be the fairest approach.
3
Why not just count the money and may the richest candidate win?
1
Fascinating article. Shedding light on something many just take for granted. Time for a change?
2
Here’s a crazy idea — how about all states hold the primary on the same day, and allow ranked-choice voting. I guess it’s... too democratic?
4
@Nick Gold Spot-On! Perhaps around June, before the 4th of July, so to speak? Ranked-choice, indeed!
1
Makes too much sense to ever happen.
2
Perhaps the media should stop anointing the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire as the clear front runner and presumptive nominee? Perhaps “candidate X wins two of 50 states (plus one)” would be a more accurate headline?
2
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain."
At least we have a great anti-trump state motto.
1
I agree, but can we leave the term “white privilege” out of this? I turn to the NYT for news, not the inflammatory proclamations of social justice warriors. Twitter is just fine for that. There are advantages to being white—aside from applying to college and getting a government job—but the term “privilege” has to many inapplicable connotations.
Anyway, I am sure the author wants to address white privilege being on display in 2008 when Iowa catapulted Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency over his white, more experienced rivals.
1
I agree. Interesting that the party of inclusion is every bit as much about white privilege as the other. This said by an old white man: me.
1
No state is representative of the whole country. It's good that some of the smaller ones function in a manner akin to minor league try outs. The fact is that "lily white" IA put Obama on the map in 2008 and "diverse" SC is keeping Biden on it this year.
There are many pros and cons to having NH be the first in the nation primary. The cons are oft written about; lack of diversity, an educated electorate that is not representative of the nation, etc. But there are some real pros too. A candidate who is not well financed can come to NH and make his or her case and build support. In fact, its the nationally televised debates, not the primary in NH which helped short circuit the nomination of Kamela Harris and Cory Booker and others like Steve Bulloch and Michael Bennett not their performance in our primary. We were still assessing them but they became invisible when left off the debates and thus we voters stopped thinking they had a chance. Second, this is the one place where candidates actually have to constantly talk to people. It's here where they can try out different stump speeches, make some mistakes, and hone their message. After NH it's all media, advertising, consultants, and money. NH is a great proving ground for candidates. It's small, intimate, and its face to face retail politics. It should be kept.
Agreed.
Having grown up in Iowa, and having left at the age of 21 and, thanks to the US Army, lived (for short periods) in Kentucky, Texas, Washington state, Georgia and one exotic, tropical and very dangerous place, can attest that Iowa is no less racist than any of the states mentioned, with the exception of Washington. Assuming Iowa's Democrats are exceptions to the state's overall racial bias, it does beggar the mind that the national Democratic Party continues to spotlight and highlight it with this more-irrelevant-than-not honor of being #2 in the primary game. But perhaps I shouldn't say "irrelevant," because it has become way too relevant in the selection of presidential candidates. Iowa's national election votes are what's irrelevant. Since the Great Depression, Iowa's share of the Electoral College vote has dropped from 13 to 6, from a whopping 2.4% to barely 1.1% of the votes that actually decide who gets the White House.
Iowa did have a run during the last 10 years of the last century, and the first dozen of this, of handing its Electoral votes to Democrats. Not enough to keep GWB in Texas, though.
Now, considering the popularity of Trump in Iowa, and the worrisome aspect of the state remaining firmly in the far right column, it makes no sense to use it as a Democratic bellwether.
3
I think a national Primary is a much better option. Everyone votes on a Monday national holiday. Preferably three months before the November elections.
Candidates can begin advertising two months before the Primary and spend up through the election. They can do their fund raising beginning January 2 of the election year.
3
I sincerely hope that because many of David's readers have been saying this for scores and scores of years doesn't regurgitate the damaging backlash whence the compromised democracy of urbanity's America assumes deplorable unfairness to region-discriminatory voting practices.
That notwithstanding, more important than routinely faking the importance of an unimportant Iowa primary kickoff, after all, is our system routinely disenfranchising California voters on Election Day.
If Election Day were TWO days, we as a nation can geographically roll/alternate which region gets to START the vote that actually counts. Imagine IA voters waiting for day #2 of a day #1 already in the books for CA.
Suddenly, the "absolutes" of home-field advantage already inherent in the Popular Vote could be additionally energized by the TIME otherwise inseparable from SPACE in reality's relativist spacetime.
1
Our current primary system is actually an anomaly. Historically, the parties have chosen the candidates and presented them to the general public for the presidential contest.
Donald Trump is not the first nativist to seek a presidential nomination, but he is the first to win one. He won only because the Republicans held a jungle primary with 16 candidates. Support for established Republican orthodoxy was split between the remainder, allowing him to win. Many decry the "smoke-filled back rooms" of yesteryear and dismiss them as fundamentally undemocratic, but the parties are still free to lose the general election. In the days of "back room" politicking, Trump would never, ever have become the nominee.
The nomination should go to someone of stature within the party who can martial the party voting machine to get people to the polls. A massive primary makes that much less likely.
2
While I agree our current system is unfair (and a rotational system or national primary is best), I can't help but think most of the opposition to the current system is driven by the fact that "my pet candidate didn't win, therefore the rules must be changed..." We act like getting our candidate to actually deal with the rules as they are is "unfair" - the game is football but it should be basketball...if it's not basketball, then my candidate can't win!!!
So the system must change. But don't feed me the high-minded falderal that the system isn't any good just because your pet candidate doesn't win. That isn't true fairness, that's demanding that one entitlement replace another one.
True fairness means changing the rules and then accepting the results even if you don't like them. It doesn't mean we get to change the rules until we get the outcome we like.
1
Just end the caucus process in Iowa, and make it a true voter primary. When not everyone has easy access to voting- the result will always be one that does not honestly reflect the will of the majority. And as for New Hampshire- why pay so much attention to such a predominantly white state? Such overwhelmingly white states like Iowa and New Hampshire are not a realistic demographic for the rest of the country.
1
What if the parties abandoned altogether caucuses and primaries that were other than non-binding beauty contests? What if the nominees were actually chosen by open conventions, where the candidates made their case to the delegates, and the delegates took the risk of selecting the party's most attractive/representative candidates? Would that kind of party discipline be such a bad thing? Wouldn't it make for candidates more representative of the party at large? If it didn't, the candidate would lose. The clown car campaigns of the Republicans (2016) and the Democrats (2020) could make a person despair.
1
Caucuses reward candidates with the most enthusiastic supporters, and not candidates with the most supporters.
Sanders will perform better in caucuses than in a primary system. Working parents can't afford to give up 3 hours to participate in a caucus, not when they must prepare dinner, wash clothes and help with homework.
1
not just working parents, some of us are other caretakers, or have to work 2 jobs to survive, commute 4 hours a day, have a disability, etc.
1
Ahem, Bernie leads with Latinos under 35, who outnumber older Latinos. That said, there is zero reason for these states to be early. Or South Carolina for that matter.
First thing to do is end the electoral college.
4
And can we PLEASE change the law so that campaigning can not start until a later point in time, like so many other countries do? Brits only have to endure the blitz for 6 weeks, while we are tortured by the rhetoric for 18 months!
3
The last thing we need is for government to be even more involved in the rules of private political parties. There’s too much involvement already. These are issues the parties should manage.
We need to radically update our elections. Everyone votes on the same day, which will be a holiday; ranked choice voting; strong anti-gerrymandering legislation.
And we should seriously revisit how empty states like North Dakota have as much representation as California and New York, which is utterly ludicrous.
4
The undue influence the Iowa caucauces have on the selection of candidates for the Presidential election is insane. But the influence of the Iowa caucuses is in part a media creation. Iowa is crawling with reporters for months ahead of the caucaus date, interviewing people in diners and American Legion clubs. I saw one TV segment with a candidate attending a backyard BBQ with about a dozen attendees. Really? This is how we want to select a President candidate? Perhaps if the news media could resist the as nauseum coverage of the Iowa caucuses, their importance would be diminished. After next Tuesday, I don't want to hear a news story from Iowa for another three years (when this ridiculous cycle will start again).
The demographics of Iowa do not mirror the rest of the United States. This is highlighted by the fact western Iowa is represented in Congress by Steven King, a white supremacist.
Make the first primary a super primary including major states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois. Then the results would have validity in determining the Presidential candidates for either party.
The column highlights demographic profile
7
How many registered voters in Iowa actually attend the caucuses, especially if it's a wintry, snowy night? Are they truly representative, even of Iowa?
3
TOTALLY agree. I get tired of hearing about Iowa Iowa Iowa. All on the same day; good idea.
3
It is so interesting to read that this state is ignorant to diversity. None consider that those remaining connected.
Perhaps it had nothing to do with race. Perhaps the message didn’t make sense from candidates now missing
Why must it be lake of ability to include all.
We in this “flyover” country think that those with a true message are still standing
After all, Iowa pushed Obama to the forefront
1
Any system of candidate selection that allowed for even the possibility of someone as inherently ill-suited and unsatisfied as Trump getting elected is fundamentally and irreparably broken. The whole system needs to be rethought afresh starting with a blank slate.
1
So separate the voting into six parts, equal to the time zones, and have primary elections only six times.
Time the elections two weeks apart, and let the voters decide.
Hugh
1
Progressives I think would be very upset if Iowa and New Hampshire were replaced by racially diverse states which would be a gift to the center-left. In 2016 just about every state that Bernie Sanders won was predominately white, the big exception being Michigan where an unusually high percentage of blacks voted for him. Most progressives are white which why someonr like Sanders wins in mostly white states and mostly white counties if diverse states, Unless there is a shift in this voting pattern I think progressives will support keeping Iowa and New Hampshire first. Not surprisingly Bernie Sanders is doing very well in these two states in the polls and not as well in the next two states which are far more racially diverse.
1
The primary value of Iowa and NH going first (regardless of race) is it allows lesser known, lesser funded, potentially game changing candidates get some traction and national attention. Changing to big state or regional primaries provides a big advantage to the corrupting influence of large donors. Such a primary system would further empower dark money, Wall Street lobbyists and self promoting Billionaires. Such a primary system would basically protect the status quo. Be very careful what you wish for.
2
Leonhardt has written here one of the best and most important opinions ever. His points about the demise of the Booker and Harris candidacies is jarring. I doubt that “Iowa” going early is the full explanation, especially for Harris, but he does raise an interesting possible answer to a question I’ve had: what happened to Booker? Why did he never get any traction? Would he still be in the mix if Rhode Island went first? Democrats ignore this issue at their own peril, given the ongoing and inevitable future demographic changes within the party.
5
Couldn’t agree more, these states in no way represent a cross section of America. Absent a national primary states like New York, California, Texas, Florida, etc. should be the first to vote. I believe we got better candidates back in the days of the “smoke filled room”.
3
Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire should not always go first, but the damage done by these early states is overstated.
A week after New Hampshire votes, it is all but forgotten in the avalanche of Super Tuesday.
Decrying the primary process, when there is an Electoral College and Gerrymandering providing white, rural, low education voters with a huge disproportionate advantage, which grants acreage and sagebrush more political power than human beings, is like focusing on a barefoot runner who jumps the starter's gun when the other racers are riding horses.
In 2040 70% of all Americans will live in the 15 largest states and will be represented by only 30 US Senators. The remaining 30% of the population will have 70 US Senators voting for their interests.
Until the United States embraces the idea of actually allowing "The People" to govern themselves rather than landowners, rural Southerners and corporate interests, the primary system is hardly worth mentioning.
224
@Concerned Citizen Agreed, but that is beside the main point that the entirety of our "democracy" is structured to favor the voice of the few over the voice of the many and that takes many forms in different parts of our government.
9
@Claudia I agree and disagree. It is all part of the same process that clearly needs overhauling, but the means to do so would require the people in power (rural states) to voluntarily give up that power and I don't see them doing that any time soon. I don't see a path out of this mess either.
20
@Concerned Citizen, true but voter suppression can certainly effect the results of elections and so does foreign interference in our elections. Look what it got us...oh, that’s right. You’re happy about that.
4
Rotating the early primaries would be an improvement, but the system will still be very flawed, arguably only rotating the unfair influence. A party nominee would be more representative of the party voters if one national primary using ranked-choice voting were adopted instead. Of course, using the ranked-choice system in the general election would further ensure that the elected president has the support of a majority of voters, but that change will remain impossible because of the constitutional amendment process.
One day, nationally-- with instant runoff voting (ranked choice). That gives all candidates a fair shot, and is practice for winning a national race.
2
When a manufacturing state gets their voice heard early in the process, a dem can and will be elected.
Be careful what you wish for.
The US democracy is unhealthy for a lot of reasons. The biggest one isn't discussed: crowd wisdom, the genius of the masses, only works if individuals have access to unmediated information and make up their own minds. Period.
We just can't accept that, because we all feel we should persuade others of what to believe and who to vote for. So campaigns assault people with spin, and more importantly, people feel social pressure intensely and unconsciously. Across this country people vote like their neighbors, their co-workers, their friends.
Iowans have developed a different approach, rooted in their first-in-line position, but also the laconic attributes of agricultural economies. They go hear multiple candidates for themselves, which requires a lack of cynicism you won't find on either coast. They listen. They make up their own minds. Neighbors don't care if they vote differently. You won't find that in the southeast or southwest.
I didn't come to this opinion easily. I believe the Electoral College is a disgrace. But even in places where everyone votes they make terrible choices sometimes. Some aspects of democracy aren't about fairness, but about process. I don't think you can expect other states to recreate what Iowa has, not easily.
28
@Brian
Very thoughtful response. But there’s an “on the other hand.” There’s no such thing as “unmediated information.” The internet, in its entirety, comes closest, but those pesky algorithms ruin it and the sheer volume of information overwhelms absolutely everyone.
So what you’re talking about is the need for truth, which requires access, experience, and judgment. Information and truth are not synonymous.
Thus, the really good point you make is that agricultural political economies tend to foster people who are less cynical, thoughtful, and more involved. Acceptance and tolerance are good qualities in Americans anywhere. Some other kinds of political economy foster the same values and should be encouraged everywhere—of course.
Iowa is not exceptional in this regard, however, and, with Mr. Leonhardt, should be seen as patronizing.
3
@Brian I don't know about neighbors not caring. As a former Iowan who still goes back to see family, people are polite. They may never publicly air their dislike of people that support the other party, or different candidates running in the same party. However, they know. And they don't forget. Sure if their neighbor needs help shoveling out the driveway, they will be there. That's how Iowans are - a rural state where people care about their neighbors. But they won't be inviting people from the opposition over for dinner. It's hard enough dealing with different political supporters in same small family. It has caused terrible fights in my own family, and one reason I don't often go back.
2
@rjon I don't think he's saying only people in Iowa can do this. I think there's far too many people who consider thoughtful discussion to be patronizing, uppity. However, I think people can be more educated in the U.S. without losing their culture. The problem is too many Americans think otherwise. Ignorance is belonging.
1
This was a system set up to insure - so the elite schemed - to make sure only more “centrist” candidates made it through. Iowa and New Hampshire are primarily white States with South Carolina being a Red State , but at the front of the pack for primaries.
1
Steve King, an eight-term congressman, clearly has Iowa's support despite his openly racist remarks on the record.
Knowing this, and to still insist Iowa is the best example of the America voter shows this claim to be as fatuous as it is cruel, and deeply mistaken.
2
@r2w Please do not lay the responsibility for Steve King on the entire state. He represents an overwhelmingly white (by Iowa standards which means really really white) and overwhelmingly conservative district. In the district, the further away from northwest Iowa you get, the more support for King drops.
@r2w Oh please. Steve King represents one of Iowa's 4 Congressional districts. The other 3 are represented by Democrats, 2 of them being women. Not even everyone in King's district supports him. Stop with the uninformed generalizations.
Glad you wrote this op-ed. Thanks. The idea of rotating the primaries among the states has been around for awhile. Hopefully, it will rise in prominence again and that the parties take notice. This should be about fairness.
1
Iowa elected Steve King. Several times. That alone justifies sending Iowa to the back of the primary voting pack.
2
@Stephanie Iowa did not elect him. The white conservative voters in his district (which is the most conservative place in the state) elected him. I won't hang Louis Gohmert around your neck. Please don't hang Steve King around mine.
The best system for both parties, and the country, would be to have the first 3 to 5 primaries each Presidential-election year be held in the so-called "tipping point" states – those, which six months prior to the beginning of the primary season, are the ones where the two major parties are closest to each other and which will likely decide the election.
This system would not only be the most informative for the voters in each party, it would remove the role of tiny and unrepresentative states in having a disproportionate impact on the choice of Presidential nominees. And, by introducing uncertainty into exactly which states are going to be contested early, it would force candidates to tailor their campaigns to a national audience, not one based on perennial concerns re, say, ethanol in Iowa.
Why not have all the states primary together. All the same day? The rural states are already favored with the electoral college and the senate. This incremental approach to the primary is another punch.
The outsized influence of the rural minority is having disastrous consequences for the USA.
6
I have issues with the Iowa caucuses, but their place in the nomination contest is very low on the list.
Why doesn't the Democratic National Committee pass a regulation stating that all voting be by secret ballot? Isn't that at the heart of democracy?
Dan Kravitz
2
I have become increasingly incensed how the Democrats can allow both IA and NH to dominate the early period of the Parry's nomination process. Both of these states are small, rural, white and hardly reflective of either the nation as a whole or of the makeup of the Democratic Party.
As the NYT's own polling results printed yesterday revealed, at present in Iowa Trump would beat every one of the current Democratic contenders.
So why is a state that is very likely to vote Red in November holding such a pivotal role in the Democrat's nomination process?
Since both IA and NH are consistently Red -- why are the Blue Democrats wasting time and money campaigning there? The only reason is the media hoopla that we've foolishly allowed to dominate the serious process of choosing the Democratic Party's standard bearer.
1
@George Not arguing with you, and agree that it would be best for other states to have a chance for equal representation (plus the endless texts, calls, mailings, and knocks on the door that come with it), but I do dispute your point about it being a GOP stronghold. Iowa sided with the Democrats in six of seven presidential elections from 1988 through 2012. I would hardly consider that "consistently red."
1
Swing states should go first as long as the electoral college determines presidents. Neither blacks in South Carolina or whites in New York matter because those states will go Republican or Democratic in the general no matter who is picked. If a candidate can’t catch fire In Wisconsin or Ohio, he or she can’t win in the general.
The substance of the argument is correct, but let’s not pretend why this argument is being raised. It’s because #DemocratsSoWhite. If, in four or eight years time, we have new states leading the way, but a similar lack of pigment in the top candidates, someone will raise new issues with the process. They’ll draw the lines however they can to get the results they want, just as the Academy Awards have shifted things in recent years in attempts to appease Twitter and the media that lives on it, to no avail.
Here’s the problem with the PR about identity politics. All the minorities? We aren’t a monolith. We aren’t a harmonious coalition. We often have divergent or conflicting concerns. We do not all vote the same. We do not agree with the PR designed leanings of white educated urban elites who want to maintain cultural hegemony while giving it a face of color.
Anyone who thinks this is about Iowa or NH is deluding themselves. Give it to a different state. See what changes. Julian Castro polled below the margin of error with Latinos. See Booker and Harris as well. Sharing some surface qualities does not make you a representative of a group.
1
Excellently argued. Practically irrefutable.
1
I have always thought it silly that IA and NH get to go first. Are their residents "more informed voters"? Are they "better citizens"? Are they "more patriotic"? Is rural and small town America "more American"? Nothing against residents of those two states, but please stop pretending that you are special, because you're not.
Why not hold ten rounds of primaries, a week or two between each round, with 5 states in each round? The 5 states in each round would be chosen to be in proximity to each other to facilitate campaigning. Rotate order every 4 years: the states that went in round 1 this cycle go to round 2 next cycle; those that went in round 2 this cycle go to round 3 next cycle, and so on . . . the states that were in round 10 this cycle go to the front of the line (round 1) in the next cycle. That way, most voters would have the opportunity to to experience being in group1 at least once in their adult life.
1
If one were cynical, one might think you don't like Iowa because you don't like the way the race is heading.
As to this question of diversity; there are two women, one gay man, an Asian, and a Jew on that stage. So I really don't understand this complaint about diversity.
In addition, I would like to point out that I consider it the height of 'privilege' (not to mention class-based identitarianism) to erase the only Jewish candidate in such a manner - in the last 3 years there have been more murderous attacks on Jewish people than during the entirety of US history.
1
Ridiculous. If you establishment people would push for DC to get statehood, maybe DC could go before Iowa, to have a more racial and ethnic representation aside from just South Carolina—if you don't completely gentrify DC first.
But otherwise Iowa is fine. It's like the old colonial and New England town meetings, only based in a smallish, Midwestern heavily agricultural state. There's not a lot of good ideas incorporated in our Money rules electoral system, but the Iowa caucuses are one of them.
Yes. As much as I'm a news junkie I have long ago learned that there is no point in deciding on my 1st choice much before the whole dog & pony show rolls into Illinois. Too often in the past I have picked someone only to have that person drop out before it gets to my turn.
I have spent much of my adult life voting in every election at every level, but regularly having the media tell me in various ways that my vote really doesn't matter. I wasn't a soccer mom; I'm currently not a white suburban woman... and horror of horrors, I definitely don't live in a "swing state." Whomever the current media darlings are in terms of who will "decide this election" I'm out of luck - it's never going to be me. Though I will continue to vote, I often wonder if I'm a fool to bother. Surely there must be a better system.
2
Why not just have one big national primary the same way we have one big national election? Campaign all year in all fifty states, then everybody voted on the same day?
4
Here is an idea. All state primaries six months before the general.
6
Absolutely right. Add to your argument that Iowa is a caucus, which further narrows participation to the most motivated voters and those who have both time on their hands to get to one on a cold Monday night in February and the time to understand the arcane rules of a caucus.
It really makes no sense for the Democrats; they are spending all these resources to get traction in a state that has six electoral votes and most years is likely to vote Republican. Imagine if they had to spend all this time and resources in a big swing state like Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania.
3
"Or consider that a candidate with strong white support (like Bernie Sanders) could win both Iowa and New Hampshire this year. That result would create a media narrative about Joe Biden’s campaign being badly wounded, even though Biden leads among two large groups of Democratic voters: African Americans and Latinos. Those voters, however, are told to wait their turn."
---
Interesting how Leonhardt frames this, as if it would be the "result" that would "create a media narrative." Results themselves don't create narratives, though. It's when those results are reported upon and interpreted by a horserace-obsessed media with skewed priorities and a bias for creating dramatic narrative arcs like "Candidate X faltering in early states signals trouble going into State Y" or "Candidate Z defying expectations to seize the top spot creating momentum going into State Q." Our media, NYT very much included, bears a lot of responsibility for creating this mentality, and these "media narratives" (in addition to normalizing the death-cult insanity of the modern GOP).
These aren't natural forces at work. These are conscious decisions made by people who prioritize attention-grabbing headlines over providing the kind of information and framing that would best equip the public to make informed political choices.
7
Here's a way to save some time and money : don't use Iowa and New Hampshire, just use my immediate family. There are 6 of us. We are 100% suburban but 4 of us are very close to a major city, and we all live in battleground states (NC and PA) We're 67% white, 16% Asian, 16% Latina. Education level might be a little higher than average for the USA, so maybe we could include some of the grandkids to balance it out. Aside from the statistical issue of only using 6 people, we would still be more representative than IA and NH
1
I agree with the idea that these two states should not be first. If anything it should probably alternative to other states each election. Either way, unless they all go the same day the voters in first state are always going to have an unfair power over others voters in later states. But I don't think all of the states going at the same time is good either since it would be impossible for lesser known candidates to ever win then. I don't think there is a perfect solution but putting states first that have demographics that match the country as a whole would probably be a good step.
A side note, Bernie Sanders is leading Biden among Latinos I'm pretty sure and has gained a lot with African Americans since 2016. So I don't buy the narrative he wouldn't be doing as well if they updated this.
1
Less attention from the press would make all the difference in the world. It's the media hype that gets people thinking that the results in IA and NH are of earth-shaking importance. FAR less coverage would go a long way toward getting this point across.
But just as IA and NH are unwilling to cede their ground, the media get a lot of eyeballs from their coverage and are equally unlikely to give it up.
Something's gotta give, and I hope the NYT will lead the way in backing off their coverage. Focus instead on the injustice of the Electoral College and focus even more on the necessity for paper ballots.
8
Having lived in Iowa for 14 years(and loving it) and through several caucus processes, I’m persuaded the only reason the caucus still exists as “first in the nation” is intense lobbying by media companies, who get buckets of money every 4 years, and the various Chambers of Commerce to keep hotels and restaurants filled in mid winter. Traveling across the state in frigid cold, sleet, snow and winds to meet 8 citizens in a breakfast place is an endurance contest, nothing more. The caucus determines nothing, except which candidates have the staying power to have persisted for months and months. The morning after the caucus, the Des Moines airport is jammed- not with people arriving, but with campaign staff, reporters, technical staff getting out of town and hoping they don’t draw the short straw for another cycle in Iowa in 4 years.
Bloomberg has it right, though he needs to be careful about an excessive snobbishness. Iowa matters, as do all of the mid western and upper plains states. The 2016 Trump campaign showed how to win the ultimate prize, without winning the coastal states. But, the time has come for all of the candidates to move on and decide to move their resources and efforts to other places.
7
Solutions abound but remain unconsidered. A national day for all states to hold their respective primaries and caucuses. Multiple Supertuesdays held back to back, etc. All beg the question of why two political parties, each representing roughly a quarter of all voters, determine the two candidates for our highest political office.
A plurality of voters belongs to neither the Democratic or the Republican parties. in late 2019, the percentage of unaligned voters was 44%. In many states, these voters cannot vote in a primary election without first swearing allegiance to a party they do not support 364 days each year.
But we are comfortable with (or simply shrug off) the spectacle of would-be presidents, planning to move ahead in the race by downing deep-fried garbage and mingling enthusiastically with pools of unrepresentative voters in America's hinterlands to gain an advantage.
Franklin is reported to have commented to a woman after leaving the Constitutional Convention, that we had designed "a republic if we can keep it." We are losing it because we ignored the founders' advice against institutionalizing political parties and allowed those parties to infect the body politic.
4
Electoral College will only be eliminated when two thirds of the states say so. I don’t understand all this discussion on the topic and it isn’t going away. States will never let the coasts determine all our politics. Hence the need for a serious middle person of the political spectrum. We cannot continue this polarization and expect progress. And as far as white privilege, please enough of the dog whistles. Where should this process start?
4
@Dante Just because you dismiss the concerns of so much of the country does not mean that this rigged system is right. You talk about the "coasts" determining politics? Is that because you consider people in rural, red states to be the "real" Americans? We are real Americans, too. How can you talk about polarization when you see what Trump has wrought on this country? You may want to start understanding all this discussion on the Electoral College because it is just beginning. There is something wrong with our system when twice in the past 20 years the loser has ascended to the presidency. The majority is not going to stand for it.
2
How about another small, more diverse state (such as New Mexico, where I live, and where I'm going to propose this to my legislators) passing a law that its primary must occur on the day of the Iowa caucuses (don't set a specific date, because Iowa can change its law to leapfrog the preceding week). Yes, it makes that state somewhat "captive" to Iowa in scheduling, but it would get more of us involved earlier in the campaign. BTW, I lived in Iowa for 5 years, participated in the 1976 caucuses, and am glad for that experience.
8
You make good points. The reality is there is only a small portion of Democrats in Iowa and NH that "take their responsibility" seriously. We could go to any state in the country and get just about the same proportion of "serious" voters. I do think there is a benefit to small states so that it isn't all TV campaign. It shouldn't be small deep blue states because as long as we have the electoral college, Democrats have to be able to appeal to our moderates and swing voters in purple states. Someone earlier suggested holding the first primaries in the purple states -- excellent idea.
2
we take it seriously. but really.. not the point. No where would be perfect (IMHO) as the United States is just too big. We are very regional. New England is actually much more like the Canadian Maritime provinces than say... Arizona. Maybe we should have a primary state in each region. first ? let's fix the voting or all of this is for nothing.
1
I have been saying this for 16 YEARS! I'm pleased to hear people with wide audiences finally making this argument in earnest. The IA/NH thing has been and continues to be a slow-motion catastrophe that benefits ONLY IA and NH. Let's demand a change for 2024!
8
We can start with the media - you can place less emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire.
As it stands now, all we hear about are Iowa and New Hampshire. You've sent folks out to interview the citizens of these states, elevating their thoughts, hopes, dreams, opinions over those of us in the rest of the country.
Start where you already have some control - with your coverage.
13
They need to have everyone start at the same time, end at the same time, eliminate the electoral college, weight senator's votes by the population of their state, eliminate Citizens United. . . . lots to do and we've run out of time.
6
@Postette Pipe dreams.
Who cares if Iowa goes first? What determines who gets the nomination is how hard the candidates continue to campaign, regardless of how they showed in Iowa and New Hampshire. Especially now, when you can get a message out on social media (instead of 3 big networks).
2
One national primary day! That would not only eliminate concerns about the order in which states hold their primaries, but it could shorten the whole process. A double win!
5
I don't understand why is it such a big problem. I can see the electoral college as a problem, but order of the state voting in primaries should not be a big deal, as long as the primary are hold in all state. The idea that voters will vote for those who are winning in the first states, seems to me naive. Usually the voters choose their candidates before the primaries. Those who don't, usually don't vote in primaries. And dropping out of the race after the first round of primaries is optional and depends exclusively on the wish of the candidates. If the candidate feels he/she has a strong chance in the 'later' states, nothing prevent them from staying in the race.
An Iowan here. Many of us would be thrilled NOT to go first. Caucus season is exhausting in so many ways, including having to deal with the grating stereotypes of the state in the media. It's hard sometimes to see us portrayed in ways that are almost unrecognizable. I've never thought that the negative media portrayals of Iowa are purposeful -- just lazy, maybe. Small example: while it's technically true that there are no individual cities here larger than 250,000, the Des Moines metro area is about 700,000 and growing rapidly, with a diverse population. It's a vibrant place to live. Yes, agribusiness is important to Iowa, but so are financial services and insurance. There is far more to Iowa than Pizza Ranches and corn fields, but you'd never know it during caucus season. This Iowan would be happy to have the caucuses fade away, for a dozen reasons.
11
The American Democratic election process is not working. Iowa and New Hampshire are two states that in no way represent the diversity of America.
The largest discrepancy in the election system is the 2 Senator rule for each state. This discrimination against millions of voters in the populated states.
The electoral college eliminates the entire voting process.
A Democracy cannot survive if a candidate with 5 or more million votes win is rejected by the electoral college.
Another serious problem is Face Book not fact checking political ads, only every one else.
4
White privilege or not, the fact that we don't have national primaries is in itself discriminatory to whatever states are at the end of the primary cycle. Often by the time the last states vote, the would be candidate has gotten enough delegates to secure the nomination, so why should people in those states even bother? Their vote is meaningless at that point anyway. We should have perhaps two or three national primaries, where the top vote getters advance to the next round. Then the whole country selects the candidates at the same time. No discrimination that way, and the whole process becomes much more democratic.
6
The more the Dems tinker with things the worse they will be - guaranteed!
Any system will have it pluses and minuses.
Perhaps the system is just fine and the candidates are the actual problem.
2
Why not one national primary, followed by a national election? Why should any state get bigger or better say in any election?
11
We will never have a President with a rational Corn-ethanol policy, because any candidate who does not fully support it will be bounced out after the Iowa primary
5
While we're at it, let's somehow initiate a phased-in, graceful, much needed end to the Electoral College. One Person, One Vote should be the rule not the exception. A candidate who receives the majority of the national vote total should be declared the winner. The presidential election is too important to entrust the office to the whims of a small group of people.
11
First selection should go to states that consistenily and portionly vote for Democatic President Candidate: they should have the first say. Bye-bye Iowa and New Hamshire. Why we letting state that tend to vote for Republican Presidential Candidate made choices for us futher down the selection process. This could be a rotating first voting by state with the highest per capita and consistenly vote for Democats each election cycle.
1
I'd propose two changes, Ranked Choice Voting, and rotate the first primaries among the 'swing states.'
10
Amen! I've been saying this for years. Find the most diverse areas in the U.S. and start there. There is more diversity in one subway car on my way to work in NYC than any one place any given time than overall in Iowa. I don't know how any one state (and then NH too) with such a skewed balance of race can have so much influence early on in any campaign.
10
A thought -- order the states based on absolute value of the margin of victory (percentage) in the previous general election. For 2020, that would be: Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, then on to Florida and Minnesota.
2016 would have opened with Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virignia.
2012 would have opened with Missouri, North Carolina, Indiana and Montana.
10
@CACondor Oh, I like this a lot.
Thx for shining a light on this. There are so many undemocratic things about our presidential elections- the electoral college of course, the fact that California residents are never represented properly, and these first staters including how Iowa is a PUBLIC process- talk about peer pressure. Then the further peer pressure/influence in general of these states as you point out- can’t be right.
7
Instead of the let this state go first not that one, hold one national primary. Everything votes at the same time, everyone has an equal say. A bonus to this approach is that it might reduce the obscene amounts of money raised and spent during the campaign season. Hopefully, it would reduce the length of the campaign season as well.
23
@DP ,primaries are run by the states. How do you propose to get all states to agree to this?
Spare us this never-ending cycle of social justice self-flagellation. I honestly don't care which state goes firs tin the primary process and neither should you. A candidate for the Presidency should be able to appeal to most Americans, not just a narrow constituency that is defined by State borders. Of course Iowans care about (some) different causes and issues than folks from South Carolina or California. We are a United STATES, people. Each sate is different. If Democrats can't get their act together and build a campaign that speaks to most voters then they have already lost.
7
@John , Iowa and NH have the power to eliminate candidates before they even get to other state primaries. Do you think these 2 small states should have that power?
13
@John Did you read the article? Mr. Leonhardt just spent the whole column explaining why the order of the states matters. Your own argument actually supports his, which you may have realized if you didn't jump into this comments section looking to bash SJW's.
You are correct John, a presidential candidate should be able to appeal to most Americans, which is precisely why Mr. Leonhardt is arguing for states that represent a broader swathe of the population to lead in primary voting. Iowa and New Hampshire are rural, overwhelmingly white states. That is not representative of the country, and it is doubly unrepresentative of the Democratic party.
I think the perfect state to go first would actually be Texas. It has a large population, plenty of diversity, urban and rural populations, and a blend of conservative and liberal Democrats.
5
@Rick - George HW Bush beat Reagan in Iowa in 1980. How do you figure that these two states have the power to eliminate candidates? The candidates just give up. https://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-caucuses-winners-very-few-candidates-become-president#in-2008-democrat-barack-obama-won-the-iowa-caucuses-with-38-of-votes-before-the-win-he-was-trailing-hillary-clinton-but-the-victory-was-enough-to-bolster-his-campaign-he-won-the-partys-nomination-and-became-president-in-2008-15
I hear voters this and voters that. Ok, based on that why do we empower voters then take away their power with the electoral college? The voters elected Hillary - like it or not, she won by over three million votes. So why isn't she president? and therein lies the problem. Not New Hampshire or Iowa by the overlying system.
15
@lastcard jb Read the constitution and you'll then know why she is not president.
@Lee Herring please lee, as I said, we empower voters, then we snatch it away. The constitution is not alway right. It is a guideline - much like the Bible. I know why she isn't - all I'm saying is it isn't right. It was a question posed to the readers, not one of ignorance - hence Therein lies the problem. perhaps read my post.
"Those voters, however, are told to wait their turn," says the person who vapidly supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Hypocrisy by any other name would smell as foul.
However, I do agree. Iowa and New Hampshire have outsized influence which Democrats are wise to moderate. We should probably eliminate all early voting. The rotation scheme is fraught with political downfalls depending on the election year.
Obama was the right President for his time. What happens if New Mexico doesn't think so in that moment. Everyone should just vote on the same day. Preferably with automatic registration and universal mail-in ballots.
8
The DNC unfairly augments whatever advantage the early states have by giving polls specific to those states equal status with national polls in its formula for debate qualification.
Voting early gives states the natural disadvantages that their voters will not be abreast of late-arriving information about the candidates, and will never be in a position to cast the tie-breaker votes.
But the DNC's debate rule gives voting early an entirely unnatural advantage.
4
White privilege? What about male privilege? Bernie Sanders may win the Iowa caucus despite being nearly 80 years old and suffering a heart attack on the campaign trail. And his "admission" that there is sexism in politics is cold comfort - he knew that his primary run in 2016 hurt Hillary Clinton a lot more than it would have hurt a man. And yet he continued, because it was all about him. So here we are, poised to see a candidate who will do nothing to support women walk way with this caucus win.
And in second place? Biden or Buttigieg? Biden who treated Anita Hill so disgracefully, and still has no idea why he should apologize? And Buttigieg - I'm a woman of color and I cringed when I heard his dismissive tone against one of his black, female constituents in South Bent, when he told her very plainly that he didn't want her vote.
The Des Moines Register has published a thoughtful endorsement of Liz Warren. And the New Hampshire Union Leader has endorsed Amy Klobuchar. This newspaper endorsed both of them. And yet every action and word they take is criticized, while the male candidates' obvious flaws must rise to a catastrophic level before they get the slightest attention. Not surprising, considering who is in the Oval Office now. For white males, there literally is no low to which they could descend, apparently, and lose votes.
I'm an attorney who lived through the Civil Rights and Women's Rights eras, and I am sickened by the fact that so little has changed since 1965.
495
@Orion Clemens But the editorial was about geography and primaries. What does this have to do with that?
56
@Orion Clemens
Bernie Sanders may have had a heart attack but he was never a libertarian Republican nor lied about his ethnic heritage in order to advance his career unlike another candidate you mention.
And if it was wrong for Sanders to take on Clinton in 2016 then it was equally wrong for Obama to take her on in 2008.
66
@Orion Clemens,
There's a lot of irony in your comment.
In 2008, HRC persisted far, far past the point of anything but a negligible chance to capture the nomination. And, unlike Sanders in 2016 - who refused to use the email issue against her - HRC filled the airwaves with anti-Obama attack ads.
You've highlighted the right dynamic, just got the black hats on the wrong people.
BTW, I am not a Sanders supporter.
It's rich that Clintonites attack Bernie for his second place campaign in2016, when Clinton herself was far, far worse in 2008.
26
Our system for electing a president is profoundly undemocratic, obscenely expensive and utterly insane. Three people sitting in just about any bar in America could come up with something better and that's after several rounds of alcoholic beverages to spur creativity.
I don't expect it to change any time soon. First of all there are powerful forces, the parties, the media and the wealthy donors who fund the circus in particular who like things just the way they are. Then there's the force of inertia--the "This is the way we've always done things" excuse for making any meaningful changes. Politicians like things predictable. I imagine that many of them long for the good old days of the smoke filled rooms where ordinary citizens had no more influence on the choice of nominee than, well, people who live in New Jersey or South Dakota do today.
Until we get to a point in this country where we trust each other enough to make the reforms that would create a more democratic and less costly process, the big, chaotic circus will roll on and the nation's media will be focused on small town high school gymnasiums in Iowa, places like Dixville Notch and forgotten African-American neighborhoods in South Carolina.
12
..this is BRILLIANTLY stated. Knowing nothing more of her, I hereby nominate this Poster {brooklyncowgirl} to ANY OFFICE which she deems she'd effect the greatest change to the tired, duplicitous and corrupt status quo. Sincerely..
Yes, some good points here but what bothers me the most is the media narrative. Why can’t the media do something about that? I believe the media narrative is why people think their votes don’t count.
6
@Joan No, actually, in many cases they think their votes don't count because their votes really DON't count. I have a favorite Democratic candidate, but I am seriously and justifiably concerned that she will no longer be a candidate by the time Missouri votes in a primary because she will be eliminated by the states who always vote first.
THEN, in the general election, should I find the Democratic candidate is preferable to the Republican candidate, my vote will once again not matter because of the Electoral College and the idiotic winner-take-all system.
When it comes to Presidential elections, my vote really Does. Not. Matter.
I have two observations this morning.
One. Behind every thriving small town or rural community I've been in, there is a core of entrepreneurial liberal leaders driving the community forward. Conversely, in every dying, boarded up and shattered small town and rural community I've been in, there is a core of ultra-conservative leaders holding the community back. I don't think these communities will recover until they are forced to start working again. That leads to my second observation.
Two. Republicans depend on donor states, like California, to fund the welfare packages they hand out to states that can't to support themselves. This is made possible by keeping donor states politically weak and welfare states politically strong. As long as Republicans are allowed to punish successful states and reward failing states, welfare states will vote Republican while successful states will vote Democrat.
Ending donor states political advantage in national elections would force them to start working again. By working, I mean making themselves competitive. In turn, successful states need to demand welfare states show a return on investments.
End state welfare - not family welfare.
14
@hart Careful what you wish for. Republicans' idea of making a state competitive is to slash social spending, privatize everything, and let companies use their borders like tax shelters.
@hart But I thought it was the core entrepreneurial liberal leaders who want the rich to pay more to the poor? LOL
One is a small state caucus and the other is a small state primary. They are given outsized importance by the horserace obsessed corporate media. Voters have enough to do without being called upon to save the media from itself. You did this, our advice is to stop doing it.
15
@Steve Bruns
I agree. The problem is less Iowa and NH politicians, who are probably about as donor bloated and parochial as politicians elsewhere, but the media. I am genuinely tired of talking heads telling me what Iowa has "decided" I think.
6
The primary system is terrible, but in fact it is useful to have Democrats find out what voters are like in states that are mostly white and rural. If California and New York led the way, Democrats might nominate folks with no chance of winning.
8
@Terry McKenna "If California and New York led the way, Democrats might nominate folks with no chance of winning."
Yes, Terry, there is that.
Agreed. We should have a series of primaries comprised of 12 or 13 ideologically balanced states going every two weeks. Those groups should then rotate in order from one primary season to the next, so that no one state gets to have undue influence compared to the rest.
It shouldn’t be this hard to figure out.
4
@Billseng Please define "ideologically balanced states." I agree that it would be better to have more than two states involved right at the beginning, but I don't understand what would go into a determination of balance
.
1
@Billseng The Democratic obsession with "balance" is paralyzing. Have a lottery every four years to select a few batches of states that will then vote every two weeks in the order that was randomly selected. Every state and every Democratic voter in every state has an equal chance every year.
Why do primaries have to be arranged on a state by state basis, we are selecting a national candidate. The state boundaries are effectively a residue of 19th century gerrymandering and should be ignored for national elections.
4
@John Stroughair Because we are the United STATES of America and our political system was designed to protect states' rights as well as individual's rights.
2
@John Stroughair
The Constitution, with its Electoral College, was adopted in the 18th century, not the 19th.
His point about gerrymandering was correct - it was a vestige of the 19th century, not the 18th.
The term is derived from the name of Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, whose administration enacted a law in 1812 defining new state senatorial districts. The law consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans. The outline of one of these districts was thought to resemble a salamander. A satirical cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale that appeared in the Boston Gazette graphically transformed the districts into a fabulous animal, “The Gerry-mander,” fixing the term in the popular imagination.
2
Here’s what I think is going to happen: Sanders is going to have clear wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and the media narrative is going to be that he’ll likely be the nominee.
And that will be what it finally takes the DNC to see that letting Iowa and New Hampshire, two entirely unrepresentative states, go first and largely determine the Democratic nominee, is something that can no longer be allowed to happen.
6
You left out out the part where only people who have three plus hours on caucus day, speak english and are disability free can participate in Iowa.
There's a balance between having it in States with more representative population but not so large that only big money, advertising based campaigns can dominate.
Also allowing only primaries, using rank choice voting and assigning party delegates based on vote totals would make the system more real.
However, they are parties and as organizations/clubs, there will always be shananigans and manipulations by those who spend the intervening years between primaries meeting and organizing.
13
Ethanol and farm subsidies. Iowa has a particularly strong incentive to maintain the Farm Bill. Candidates must promise to keep the money rolling in to get through their caucuses. I am surprised that other states don't try to get ahead of them in line.
If Delaware were the first, you'd see a lot of promises given to the usury industry. West Virginia would, no doubt, get promises about propping up coal. Texas, tea. North Dakota, pipelines. Montana, ranching.
At the very least we should have 3 or 4 states go first at the same time.
6
These states will not give up being first, but their influence can be reduced if the parties schedule other primaries immediately after them. If they put the primaries on, say, February 5, put other primaries on Feb. 6 or 7. They will get their first, but candidates will have to split their time to campaign in other states. Whatever the Iowa results may be, no one is going to jump to conclusion until the next day results are in.
11
In my humble opinion, this needs to be more radically rethought. All our habits go back to a time when ours was a very different nation.
Here are my proposals:
All primary voting on ONE day.
Primary day should be a holiday. I propose July 3rd - for a 2-day holiday.
Candidates should campaign from the start as P/VP tandem.
Election day should also be a holiday.
Inauguration should happen within 2 weeks from election - which means candidates will have to present their cabinets (shadow cabinets) before the election.
Every four years we are being suckered by the process. It needs to change.
21
Full disclosure, I went to school in Iowa and I love the state. However I would like to suggest that Connecticut go first. We have about the same population as Iowa. Yet our urban areas are some of the most diverse in the country. While our urban areas regularly vote Democratic and carry the state, our small towns tend to vote Republican. While Connecticut does have vibrant cities, we also have/had an industrial corridor which has suffered from the offshoring of our manufacturing industry. Much of our industry is dependent on government contracts. We also still have family farms. Like Iowa, our population has a high level of education, and we also have stark economic inequality. In other words, Connecticut is far more representative of the country than Iowa is.
6
@CMS Also, much easier to get to from DC and NY for reporters (and candidates).Compact too.
Since the election always seems to come down to the voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan -- they should be the first primary states. It will help eliminate fringe candidates and focus on a potential leader who can win the general election by a true majority. End elections where the president wins by less than 50% -- we need a president who manages the Executive branch and governs - not just someone who issues executive orders.
7
Well, gosh, ever stop to think that maybe we here in Iowa ARE better than you? I certainly have. And I’ve come to the conclusion that, no, we’re not. So take our caucuses. Please. I could use the rest.
12
@Dennis Smith Having lived in 4 other states, I can tell you that while the caucus process may be a mess, Iowans are far more informed about the election and candidates than most places. Of course this is only BECAUSE of their out sized power. I wonder what kind of system could give all citizens that same power?
1
This is only tangentially on topic but I think it's telling. Look at real estate listings in New Hampshire. I've looked at listings all over the US and New Hampshire homes are uniquely disheveled and most (most!) lack garages! In a northern state so rural and so influenced by coastal weather this can only point to a deficit of some sort. Money? Brains? Foresight? What's up with no garages? I wonder if Iowa has garages....
5
@Always looking It does.
i hope that voters elsewhere are somewhat aware of the demographics in these states and factor that in, as well as the relatively small number of delegates these states contribute to the entire process.
rather than fret about this issue, i would prefer to focus on the elephants in the room : winner take all per state in the general election and the electoral college, which has made president the LOSER of the popular vote twice in the last 5 elections (40%) ; persistence of "superdelegates" in the democratic convention despite their totally unfair disenfranchisement of voters' choices :
very disproportionate per person representation in the senate ( one senator for 20 million californians and one senator for 450,000 in wyoming). unfortunately, the make up of the senate cannot be changed by a constitutional amendment, but the electoral college certainly can either be eliminated with an amendment, or made irrelevant by proportional representation in elector selection rather than winner take all in each state. maine and nebraska already do this.
12
I agree that Iowa shouldn’t always be the first state in the process. This has nothing to do with “white privilege” - whatever that might be - though it seems to be in vogue this week. Next week it will be some other made up grievance.
The reason is Iowa being first ensures that agricultural special interests - which today have displaced “family farms” - will continue to have outsized influence on our politics and their subsidies and carve outs. The ethanol travesty is a product of this nonsense. When you take Into consideration the energy inputs to produce ethanol it is pretty much a net loss in energy conservation and drives up food prices by diverting land resources away from food crops.
10
Iowa and New Hampshire are just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Underneath is the whiteness of the wealth that completely supports candidates, the whiteness of states that dominates the electoral college and senate representatives and the white Republicans that dominate red states with their gerrymandering and voter suppression. And finally the whiteness of too many candidates that use race to divide voters to win elections. The “people “ haven’t been adequately represented for decades.
5
It appears the Dems are trying to right this ship by moving states with more diversity, i.e. SC, earlier in the calendar. Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, New Mexico and Arizona should have a much earlier say in the process. I’ve heard over the years that it’s expensive to buy media time in larger states and that IA and NH provide a “proving ground” for organization, etc. I think the rise of social media obviates that argument. IA and NH claiming “well, we take this seriously” is, to me, a joke. They take their issues seriously and force candidates to commit early to comments they can’t take back later. I live in Houston and the flood of Bloomberg ads on my television is breathtaking. if his strategy works and he picks up even a few hundred delegates, I think we’ll see a big change in the 2024 cycle.
7
Three words: " Ranked-Choice Voting".
The election process in the U.S. is entirely too long and expensive. It's my belief that many citizens give-up on voting out of election campaign fatigue. Forget primaries, they waste gobs of time and money. And overall, I'm not impressed with the winners of our elections over the past 40 years. We can always go back to the primary system, if something worse evolves. But after Trump, that really stretches the imagination.
19
@tjsiii I can see your point, but if you had a large enough field the “winner” might have a very small percentage of the overall vote. I suppose you could do it in two stages, with the first being an elimination round to thin the field. Also, we could go back to the second place finisher becoming the vice-President.
@T Smith That's not how ranked choice works. Candidates keep being eliminated until one gets more than 50%.
4
How do you accurately rank choices when you have 15 choices? It smacks of the online surveys where you rank the 12 things about a product. When the initial vote is 20 per cent, the validity of a calculation that pops up of 50 per cent plus one seems dubious. As the campaigns from IA to NH to SC, you get the same winnowing with results that people understand.
Three words: " Ranked-Choice Voting".
The election process in the U.S. is entirely too long and expensive. It's my belief that many citizens give-up on voting out of election campaign fatigue. Forget primaries, they waste gobs of time and money. And overall, I'm not impressed with the winners of our elections over the past 40 years. We can always go back to the primary system, if something worse evolves. But after Trump, that really stretches the imagination.
4
I agree that it is absurd the amount of power such a small state with very specific interests gets. The only reason we still have subsidized corn for ethanol is because of Iowa. Years have passed from the “this makes us less reliant”on imported gasoline. The US is one of the biggest oil producer sin the world now. Ethanol costs more, produces more greenhouse gas emissions in its production and is pretty much reviled by most mechanics. But we can’t change course. We must support an industry that hurts us all be because the Iowa farmers must be placated. When Trump trade wars hurt many groups, who got billions of handouts. Farmers are important to a political party and must be bought off to keep voting. This is absurd.
How about an early state where public transportation is important? NY and CA get essentially no say in their needs, despite enormous populations, because they are so severely underrepresented. Southern states got made whole after hurricanes, but PR, with no electoral votes, still struggles.
Our system is thoroughly unfair.
19
This is a non issue but something interesting to political junkies and reporters. If these other states want influence their residents should show up and VOTE, regardless of when their primary takes place. Last i checked, the nominating conventions in both parties take place after the last primaries.
6
My opinion is that if it's not broken, don't change it. NH and IA both have been the first in the nation for a long time and they have an infrastructure setup for these kind of national spectacle.
1
Except it IS broken, that’s the whole point. Every president but one has been a white man.
Voters in these states already benefit from the Senate makeup and the electoral college, how much more voting power do you think they should have?
17
Yes, eliminate the Electoral College. It has prevented the popular vote winner from being president twice in the last two decades. It thwarts the will of the majority.
21
@tom The purpose was and remains not to thwart the popular will but to balance the interests on individuals and states. It is important to remember our nation is effectively a confederation of individual sovereign states and the electoral college is the mechanism to prevent, or minimize, the “tyranny” of the larger population states over the smaller. Further, there is no chance whatsoever of the Constitution being amended to eliminate the as it would require too many stated to effectively give up their power to larger states. Only about 10 states would benefit and the rest would never ratify the amendment.
Thank you for this interesting article. I simply cannot understand why this antique tradition of Iowa caucuses still continues. I cringed when I saw this “A typical voter in Iowa or New Hampshire has up to 20 times more influence than somebody in later-voting states.” Compounded with the fact that it’s a predominantly white state, that ends up with underrepresentation of influence from people of color. If we want to start the process in a state that is representative of US demographics, we should begin with Illinois, or with a Super Tuesday of 8-10 states.
15
@jen How about a Super Tuesday of ALL the states at the same time. Now that would make things real interesting.