And in fact, we actually think there should be a relatively short window for these nominating events across the country. We should look at these early voting states like straw polls that are effectively testing the candidates to see how viable they are.
Can they speak to voters? Do they connect with people on the ground? Do they seem authentic? The early rounds of voting can answer these questions and then we follow that up with the national primary where everyone can vote all on one day. The Democratic Party is a young and diverse coalition rooted largely in urban centers.
Iowa is extremely white, extremely rural, and disproportionately old. This is partly why Bernie Sanders has been shooting up the polls in Iowa lately. It will be interesting to see how the state evolves moving forward. It supported Obama in and and then Trump in Can you say a little more about your reform proposal and why you think it takes the best of all the different systems we have now? Again, our caucus window is intended to be straw polls that would inform voters nationwide about which candidates were viable and could win the nomination.
Many states moved away from caucuses in because the Democratic Party changed the rules, making it harder for states to hold caucuses. Given the realities of the new DNC rules, one could imagine modifying this reform proposal so that states could hold nonbinding caucuses or primaries during an early voting window. This would be followed by a national primary where voters from all states cast a binding ballot on the same day the idea of Super Tuesday expanded.
Under the current system, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada provide information to voters nationwide about which candidates have a chance to win. So a system like that would naturally favor the richest candidates and that seems like a bad idea. But if you do that, then everything is basically over and the smaller states that follow would be effectively disenfranchised. I really do think a big benefit of starting with small states is that any candidate can afford to campaign there.
You can go to Iowa and drive a bus around the state and engage in old-school retail politics — attending town halls and rallies, for instance. And you have a decent chance of interacting with real people. This kind of engagement is important and worth preserving, because the alternative is just blanket national TV campaigns and ad blitzes. Iowa and New Hampshire have fought hard to keep their first-in-the-nation status. It was not until when a little known governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter, decided that he wanted to use the Iowa caucuses as a way of launching his national campaign.
A few years later in , the Republican party adopted similar reforms and began holding its caucuses in Iowa first. Iowa is important because it is the first state to vote, meaning it is the first time party members can express who they want to represent them in a general election. In the Democratic race, there are 41 pledged delegates and eight unpledged superdelegates up for grabs.
However, this is a relatively small amount when you consider Texas and California who have and delegates respectively. According to census data , minorities account for less than 10 per cent of the population in Iowa.
By comparison, about 27 per cent of the U. Kedrowski said whichever candidate garners the most support after the first alignment could claim victory, but a candidate who performs better than expected could claim victory too. In the past five contested primaries, the winner of the Iowa caucuses has gone on to be the Democratic nominee.
In the 12 Democratic caucuses that have been held in Iowa since , nine times the top delegate winner in the state has ultimately been the nominee.
But only three U. Bush and Barack Obama. This year, there are 1, precincts in Iowa, with an additional 99 satellite precincts set up. Caucus organizers are expecting an enormous turnout and are hoping to surpass the , participant record set in New Hampshire also has the second oldest population in the country, and a relatively small fraction of people in their 20s and 30s, whose future will be determined by presidential policies of today on a range of issues, from climate change to the deficit.
Iowa fares no better on most of those scores; like New Hampshire, it has a population that is about 90 percent white in a country that is 60 percent white.
Both Iowa and New Hampshire have a higher proportion of homeowners than the national average, which means that, in addition to privileging the concerns of the whiter, older segments of the US population and the policy interests of, for example, Iowa corn farmers who want ethanol subsidies, the early voting in these states probably discounts the perspectives of those who rent rather than those who have secure housing. Or look at what happened this year to Senator Kamala Harris of California, who faltered in part due to a failure to gain traction in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Candidates less popular among people of color, however, like former South Bend, Ind. A National Bureau of Economic Research study of the presidential primary estimated that people in early-voting states had up to 20 times the influence in candidate selection of voters in later primaries. This is not a matter of judgment against the good people of Iowa and New Hampshire.
That kind of civic engagement is laudable, if not necessarily fair to preserve for the rarefied and relatively few Americans who live in those states. But retail politics and eliminating the first-in-the-nation status of New Hampshire and Iowa are not mutually exclusive; a new system could be designed that allows small-in-population states that are more diverse and representative, like Rhode Island or New Mexico, to play this role, or that adds additional states as first-out-the-gate to counterbalance the skewed demographics of states like New Hampshire.
Some will undoubtedly say that putting a first primary and caucuses anywhere in the country is likely to be flawed in some respect in attempts to represent the nation.
But there are better ways around this than merely resigning ourselves to giving New Hampshire and Iowa first-in-the-nation status.
0コメント