Both New Hampshire and Iowa have a long history of being the first states to hold presidential contests during election years. This tradition dates back to the beginning of the elections.
The question is, should they be the ones to go first?
The effect of the two states, which has not been acknowledged, raises legitimate concerns about diversity, equality, and representation in politics. This is something that a political scientist who studies elections and Congress is well aware of. Introducing them to you at this moment.
They are not representative of the country in any way.
White and non-Hispanic people make up 84% of Iowans and 89% of New Hampshire, even though just 58% of Americans consider themselves to be of this group. It is not accurate to say that the states of New Hampshire and Iowa are representative of the country as a whole when it comes to race in particular.
Every single person is affected by the president because of the national position that he holds. due a win in New Hampshire or Iowa may offer a surge in momentum, media attention, and financing, they have greater influence over the campaign than voters in the majority of other states.
This is due to the influence that they have over the contest. This is something that candidates are aware of, and they conduct their campaigns accordingly: As of the middle of January, eighty percent of all Republican campaign events had taken place in the states of New Hampshire and Iowa.
There should be no staggered order for the primaries.
A decentralized method is used to conduct voting in the United States of America. In preparation for the party conventions, primary elections are conducted at a variety of times during the election year by a variety of states and parties based on their respective priorities.
Regardless matter how accurately Iowa and New Hampshire represent the population of the United States, states that do not cast their votes early will still be at a disadvantage in the process. As a general rule, the primary elections for the major parties are practically finished by April. As a result, dozens of states that have not yet had their primaries are not included in the process.
As an example, consider the Democratic primary election of 2020. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Joe Biden’s primary opponent, ceased his campaign activities before the votes were even taken in 26 states and territories.
When it comes to information, they could have an advantage in the later phases. Take, for example, the fact that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will not be able to read the results in any of the several legal cases that Donald Trump has been involved in, although voters in other states would be able to do so.
Whatever the case may be, this advantage does not come without some restrictions. Voters in states that cast their votes later than those in Iowa will not necessarily have access to the same pool of candidates as those in Iowa. Because Ron DeSantis, a former governor of Florida, has decided to withdraw his candidacy, the vast majority of people in the United States will never take advantage of the chance to vote for him.
What are the other choices available to you? Following the triumph of Joe Biden in the primary election held in South Carolina in 2020, the Democrats in that state decided to conduct their primary election for the year 2024 sooner than usual. On the other hand, the primary calendar can start with a greater variety of states that are alternate.
For example, frontloading major states such as California, Illinois, or Texas would surely result in a greater number of votes; yet, it would also make it more difficult to contact individual voters. Politically speaking, it is also a tricky matter: in 2024, the Democrats moved South Carolina to an earlier primary, but many people perceived it as an attempt to assist incumbent Joe Biden, who placed third in 2020 despite losing in New Hampshire and Iowa.
All fifty states might have their primary elections on the same day, using a more thorough reform, to make it more comparable to every other election in the United States. Smaller states would be able to stand out on their own without being confused by larger states that have more votes and delegates if the current system of staggered elections were eliminated.
As a result, these states would be opposed to this change. Additionally, voters could have the opportunity to get more familiar with the candidates via the use of staggered primaries. According to political science, individuals see politics through a personal lens. However, the current expenditure, which virtually denies voting rights to citizens of states who wait until the very last minute to cast their votes, may not be justified.
Charles R. Hunt is now being employed as an associate professor of political science at Boise State University.
READ MORE: