Commentary: NewWest.Net/Politics
How Iowa and New Hampshire Hijack American Democracy
By Brian Mann, Guest Writer, 11-20-07
In a few short weeks, presidential candidates from both parties will face their first serious tests in Iowa and New Hampshire. “Iowa political leaders often say Iowans have the job of reducing the field of presidential candidates for the rest of the nation,” boasted David Yepsen, veteran political columnist for the Des Moines Register. New Hampshire’s former Governor John Sununu was even more grandiose, once claiming “the people of New Hampshire pick presidents.”
But increasingly, the voters in those two states make lousy gatekeepers. They’re the last people in the world who should be making the first cut of presidential candidates. The simple truth is the hamlets and pocket-sized cities of Iowa and New Hampshire no longer resemble mainstream America.
Consider first that their citizens are more than 90 percent white, compared with just 75 percent nationwide. That fifteen-point gap is a disaster in a nation where race often shapes a community’s politics. Hispanics have emerged as the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the country. Illegal immigration is one of the most controversial topics this campaign season. But with Hispanic populations ranging from 2-3 percent, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have almost no experience with the issue.
It gets worse. Over the last half-century, our country has emerged as a predominately urban and suburban nation. More than 80 percent of us live in metro areas; and a third of our population is gathered in just 10 massive super-urban clusters. But Iowa and New Hampshire still resemble the America of the 1950s. Between a third and one-half of their citizens still live in small towns, relying heavily on 19th-century industries that most of us abandoned a generation ago. The two early-primary states rank near the bottom—32nd and 46th respectively—in their contributions to America’s GDP.
As a consequence, our presidential candidates wind up spending months in rural diners, standing on hay bales, talking to white people about social and economic issues that most Americans don’t care about. It’s a troubling fact that Hillary Clinton’s plan for revitalizing family farms and small town economies is far more bold and sophisticated than her plan for solving the health care crisis.
Unfortunately, the disconnect runs deeper. There was a time not so long ago when white, rural Americans voted pretty much the same way as voters in big cities and suburbs. Iowa and New Hampshire were reasonable proxies for the rest of us. But Ronald Reagan and his political descendants have converted small town folks into a far more conservative, Republican-leaning block of voters. Even Democrats and Independents in those states tend to be more right-leaning than their counterparts nationwide.
As a consequence, conservative and ruralist politicians tend to perform ridiculously well in Iowa and New Hampshire, while liberals and moderates struggle. In 1988, evangelical leader Pat Robertson finished second in Iowa’s Republican caucus, beating George Bush Sr. Four years later, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin sought the Democratic nomination, running so strong in his home state that the other Democratic candidates simply opted out. In 1996, culture warrior Pat Buchanan beat moderate Bob Dole in New Hampshire’s GOP primary. In 2000, left-leaning Democrat Howard Dean was running strong in national polls until voters in New Hampshire and Iowa kicked him down the stairs.
These might be anomalies—bits of presidential trivia—if not for the fact that the early primary states once again appear wildly out of sync with the national mood. Consider Iowa. According to the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, Barack Obama has actually taken the lead in the Buckeye State, despite the fact that his national poll numbers are running nearly 20 percent behind those of Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, meanwhile, Mike Huckabee’s appeal in Iowa is more than four times greater than his popularity nationwide.
Now consider New Hampshire. The latest CBS/New York Times poll shows Mitt Romney polling twice as strong as Rudy Giuliani in the Granite state, despite the fact that on the national scene Giuliani remains dominant and Romney has barely broken out of single digits. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama by a relatively fragile fifteen points.
So why do we hold our first contests in states that don’t think or vote like the rest of America? Supporters of the current system argue that rural-centric primaries force politicians to practice a kind of retail politics largely forgotten in the rest of the country. To win California, or even New Jersey, you have to make big media buys. To win Iowa and New Hampshire you have to go door-to-door, sitting down with average folks on front porches.
This, as they say on the farm, is hogwash. Iowa and New Hampshire have emerged as hugely expensive, Byzantine political rituals. They convey huge power onto a small political elite, who have no national credentials. Meanwhile, the rest of America watches from the sidelines. The candidates visit California, Illinois, New York, or Texas only long enough to suck up campaign cash, then they rush back to Des Moines and Concord.
If we staged a first-in-the-nation primary in one of the big states (Florida, say) all that would change. The candidates would spend time in urban neighborhoods and sprawling suburbs, as well as far-flung rural counties. Politicians would hear from blacks and Hispanics, as well as small-town whites. They would kiss babies and make speeches and ride through downtown neighborhoods in 4th of July parades.
There are signs that this kind of pushback has begun. Florida and Michigan are fighting to move their primaries ahead in the calendar, triggering the wrath of Republican and Democratic leaders. And a more significant rebellion may be building among politicians tired of testing their mettle in low-population states that vote out of sync with the country as a whole.
Top-tier candidates have already distanced themselves from the Iowa straw poll and the eccentric Iowa caucuses could be next. According to a report in the Tennesseean newspaper, Republican Fred Thompson’s strategy “seems to be to skip Iowa, the first state where voting actually takes place, make a token effort in New Hampshire, and count on early wins in South Carolina and Florida.” Meanwhile, The Nation reported that Giuliani “has all-but-decided to skip the [Iowa] caucuses, potentially negating the state’s importance.”
Desperate campaigns, of course, will continue to look to Iowa and New Hampshire for an artificial infusion of credibility. Staffers for John McCain assured the Washington Post recently that a win in New Hampshire would put their candidate “on the covers of the most-read newspapers and magazines, and the cable networks would provide him around-the-clock coverage. And less than a week later, they say, he would translate that momentum into a win in Michigan.”
Indeed, an argument can be made that holding this kind of life-or-death contest in New Hampshire and Iowa still makes some kind of sense for the GOP. White, rural voters have established themselves as a crucial voting block for Republicans, roughly as important as the African American vote for Democrats. Republicans who can’t find a way to mobilize small town voters in those states will struggle nationally.
But for Democrats, who attract the vast majority of their votes in cities and inner-ring suburbs, rural primaries are simply idiotic. It would be like the GOP culling its presidential field by holding early primaries in Massachusetts and New York. In 2004’s general election, John Kerry won only about a million votes in New Hampshire and Iowa combined. He garnered more support in the five metro counties around Philadelphia.
Fortunately, there are sound proposals circulating for reforming the primary system. As noted, a growing number of states are simply crowding forward on the calendar, unwilling to play the role of wallflower while the presidential field is winnowed. Other plans would rotate the early primaries among various states, or bundle states in the South or the West into attention-grabbing regional primaries.
Politicians and activists in Iowa and New Hampshire will naturally resist these changes, but the time has come for those good folk to let someone else take a turn guarding the gate.
Brian Mann is a journalist and author of ”Welcome to the Homeland” (Steerforth/Random House) a book about the influence of conservative small towns on American politics. He is also an Edward R. Murrow-award winning public radio reporter, whose work appears frequently on NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered. He lives in a small town in rural northern New York.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Yes, it made us feel important to be feted by nationally-known politicians, but the Norman Rockwell vision that still runs rampant in Iowa is a far cry from the urban multiracial reality in America's cities. So I support relinquishing Iowa's "first election" status, and letting the politicians swarm elsewhere. It will also save a few more ears of Iowa sweet corn and fresh tomatoes for the natives.
And the MSM would be happy with either.
that democracy? Is that what the founding fathers anticipated? It angers me.
You are right. All state primaries should be on the same date, at the same time.
I also think it is wrong that voting in the east is over and announced before the West even finished voting. The MSM does their part by announcing the projected winner before most Californians have even voted.
Voting should be in a 24 hour time slot, say from midnight EST to midnight EST for everyone, from Maine to Hawaii. And no results can be posted by any state or media until every vote in every state and county in the nation has been counted.
Then, we may at least figure our vote counts somewhat.
We would then have to work on the Electorial College bullshit.
You are on the money with regard to same day primaries, as well,
with media coverage and the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans make the first step democratic participation be able to meanningfully vote for the parties nominee. The media would have you believe that our choices are pre-ordained even before the first primaries. What will be next the divine right of families to be party nominees?
What can We do? We need a constitutional amendament! We need a Supreme Court ruling. We need Americans waking and sueing the federal government! Stop the nonsense about who favored by this. The fact is that primaries of 37 states are a pretense.
with media coverage and the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans who are trying to take the first step in democratic participation by being able to meanningfully vote for the parties nominee. The media would have you believe that our choices are pre-ordained ..... even before the first primaries. What will be next the divine right of certain families to be party nominees?
What can We do? We need a constitutional amendment! We need a Supreme Court ruling. We need Americans waking and sueing the federal government! Stop the nonsense about who is favored by this. The fact is that primaries of 37 states are a pretense.
Every four years, there are discussions about this, with promises made, and every four years, the politicians walk away from it because they are part of that establishment.
I am from Utah, a Republican delegate, and totally disgusted with our party here. It is a waste of time to go to convention. The powers that be have already made the decisions. The delegates just get to give their nod of approval. If anything looks like there may be a revolt, that item is tabled, to be discussed later in the day. Then, as it always turns out, there isn't a quorum of delegates still around to vote on it. So the party powers have their way again. Just ask Joe Cannon or Rep Chris Cannon.
I'm glad you care and are there. I'm in Mieral County, West Virginia. It is pathetic to see the current state of affairs. You're arguments are the same as my own.
I just believe some group should start the idea of legal challenge. Thanks for your concern
There are too many vested interests to have much hope for a broad scale change. Nevada may have started the slow process for change. States have also joined together for same day nomination vote. Change is slowly happening.
What you say about slow change may so, but what about the 48,000,000 senoir citizens in approximately 37 states that will likely die disenfranchised by the current system. A fundamental right such as voting should not be limited to two candidates picked by super Tuesday! We should have a legal remedy now. We should not have wait for internal sociological voluntary evolution to ocurr. Surely the constitution does not intend for 37 states to have no meaningful voice in a national election.
And the MSM would be happy with either. "
Based on polls from all ends of the political spectrum only John McCain can beat Hilary, not Giuliani or Huckabee!! So much for the American people's concerns about shamnesty!!
The left never gets tired of claiming unfairness when their side is not favored. This article is nothing but another whiney diatribe from a leftist who would rather not see anyone who does not live in New York, Boston, or San fransisco be allowed to vote at all.
The MSM has always been liberal. They would love to have two liberal candidates to choose from. How could they lose?
BTW: I haven't seen McCain doing all that well in the polls at "all ends of the political spectrum". Am I missing something? What polls are you referring to? It appears to me that Romney has Iowa, New Hampshire, and now South Carolina tied up. Along with Michigan and Nevada being close. The trend in California is showing better every day for Romney. I must not be reading the same stuff you are.
You are right about much of what you say. However, my right as a West virginian to have the same weight in voting in the primaries as someone from Iowa or New Hampshire is the issue I and the residents of 37 staes outside of super Tuesday. Is this a Missouri compromise kinda of effect?
I agree with the rest of your sentiments wholeheartedly
Thanks for the Hawkeye/Buckeye correction. Too many hours spent watching the Buckeyes bashing on my Missouri Tigers...
I wanted to respond to a couple of the other thoughts here.
The idea that the early primaries should be representative isn't a liberal-conservative issue. It's a fairness issue.
We simply shouldn't hold make-or-break national votes (which is what Iowa and New Hampshire represent) in states with very few black people and almost no Hispanics.
One critic suggests that holding primaries in California and Massachusetts would be even less representative of the country as a whole.
True, those two wouldn't be the best choice.
But the fact is that those states -- on opposite coasts -- together comprise about 15 percent of the country's population.
Iowa and New Hampshire, meanwhile, have only about 1.5 percent of the country's population. And as I've pointed out they're hardly a typical little slice of modern America.
Our Constitution gives small, rural states the power to control any and all changes to the Constitution.
Low-population states receive such a huge redistribution of power in presidential elections that they'll never agree to serious reform of the electoral college.
But the political parties do have the power to change their early primary schedule. It would be a relatively easy common sense improvement.
Best,
Brian Mann
Life is still very good in the good old USA!
Iowa and New Hampshire, meanwhile, have only about 1.5 percent of the country's population. And as I've pointed out they're hardly a typical little slice of modern America."
There isn't any reason why all of the primaries cannot be held at the same time nor is there any reason 1.5% or 15% of our national population should be deciding for the rest of the US the nominations to run.
NH state law says they have to be the first. Who appointed them God over all the other states?
Your article seems to be a repetition of two main points: (a) that Iowa and New Hampshire voters are poor representations of the public will and thus subvert democratic politics through an unfair redistribution of power, and (b) that other states with larger populations and larger contributions to the nation's economy should be the "gatekeepers."
There are numerous problems with the first statement. You assert that Iowans choose the "wrong" (for lack of a better word) candidate because their views are out of sync with the rest of the country. Isn't it possible that, in fact, their opinions are shaped by the fact that their caucus is the first in the nation, and therefore they receive more attention?
Consider the John Edwards phenomenon. According to your argument, John Edwards (who is tied with Obama and Clinton in Iowa polls) receiving the nomination because of an early Iowa win would be because Iowans have skewed voting tendencies. This would ignore the fact that Edwards' strategy was to put all of his eggs in the Iowa basket and campaign there more heavily than anyone else (knowing that he didn't have the resources to compete nationally with Senator Clinton). If he hadn't, he would be trailing in the polls there just as much as he is everywhere else.
The moral of the story is that Iowans don't choose their candidates by being out of touch with the larger public; they choose their candidates because they are more familiar with them. In other words, it is equally possible that Iowans choose the nomination because they are more informed than Floridians (trying very hard not to make a Dubya comment) as it is that they are out of touch with mainstream American sentiment.
The second statement is wrong on many, many levels. First, a re-distribution of power is precisely that - a way for smaller communities to have a greater say in Washington than Wall Street and Silicon Valley. It's a way of making sure that enormous multinational conglomerates that are headquartered in giant cities don't control truly every aspect of national politics (whereas now they only control most aspects of it).
Second, you're delusional if you think that a greater emphasis on larger urban areas would translate into a greater emphasis on the black and hispanic voters who live there. Giving more political power to a city like Atlanta might sound like a good way to strengthen the voice of African Americans, but it wouldn't be. It would be a good way to strengthen the voice of Coca-Cola and CNN. The black people who live there will be disenfranchised every bit as much as they already are. Addressing the race imbalance in politics will take a lot more than re-arranging the primary schedule.
And lastly, if mainstream public opinion is so strongly opposed to Iowa and New Hampshire's, then the mainstream public opinion sure is weak about expressing it. Moreover, if the American public really authentically supported Senator Clinton's nomination, then Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't be able to disrupt it. If they do, then public opinion was weak to begin with.
What primary do vote in ?
I understand your point about the costs of campaigning directly in all 50 states is prohibitive to most candidates. But there is no reason that the same states (Iowa, Ne Hampshire, So Carolina) need to be the decision makers at every election.
A national primary is in order, with registered Republicans voting for Republicans and registered Democrats voting for Democrats. No party switching. You must be registered with a party to vote.
The presidential elections should be as I addressed the subject above.
I DO UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY STATES RIGHTS ISSUES, BUT I AGREE WITH MOST of YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECTS ADDRESSED. You are right.
We are all biased and look to forward our own issues, that is the point. Only those in the primaries before or during the Super Tuesday have an opportunity to pursue them. Meredith's arguements are the same old trite rationalizations usually expressed by those who have the power to express them, I geuss premium voters. Animal Farm voters. 37 is a large number of states, whoose primaries mean nothing. Theres no arguement for that!!!!
I vote in Arizona. Born and raised in Tucson, which probably has a higher Hispanic population than almost all the other major cities in the country.
1. Your interpretation is that candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire have historically picked abnormal candidates because they are not representative of the larger public. My interpretation (evidenced by John Edwards) is that they make choices because of increased exposure to all candidates.
2. States with huge populations and dense concentration of financial wealth already influence the federal process in countless ways. There's nothing wrong with re-distributing that power to a different population segment. It prevents cities' interests from becoming too powerful.
3. Emphasizing cities in early primaries would not shift power to minorities. It would shift power to even wealthier white people.
4. All states have the power to elect delegates. If public opinion is THAT different from Iowa and New Hampshire, then they would express it that way. If later primaries depend totally on the Iowa caucus, then public opinion was weak.
5. The author's suggestion that we give Florida the ability to decide the candidate would repeat the catastrophe of 2000.
1. Your interpretation is that candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire have historically picked abnormal candidates because they are not representative of the larger public. My interpretation (evidenced by John Edwards) is that they make choices because of increased exposure to all candidates.
So you're arguing that those states picked Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and now Mr. Huckabee because they got to know those guys and realized they were the best candidates?
2. States with huge populations and dense concentration of financial wealth already influence the federal process in countless ways. There's nothing wrong with re-distributing that power to a different population segment. It prevents cities' interests from becoming too powerful.
Cities and suburbs are where 80% of us live -- a percentage that will increase sharply over the next half-century. When you say you don't want "cities' interest" to become "too powerful" what you're really saying is you don't want average Americans' interests to become too powerful.
3. Emphasizing cities in early primaries would not shift power to minorities. It would shift power to even wealthier white people.
This just isn't how it works. Cities elect minorities. And states with large minority populations elect minority candidates to statewide office. And if big urban states had more influence, it stands to reason that they would push more minorities to the top of the national political roster.
4. All states have the power to elect delegates. If public opinion is THAT different from Iowa and New Hampshire, then they would express it that way. If later primaries depend totally on the Iowa caucus, then public opinion was weak.
Our media culture exaggerates the power of these states exponentially -- so that Iowa and New Hampshire CAN make or break a candidate. I think that's inappropriate for states that don't resemble (demographically or culturally) America as a whole.
But it's also problematic that a year of campaigning in those states literally rewires the candidates themselves. As I pointed out, Clinton and Edwards and Giuliani and Romney wind up talking about (and thinking about and legislating about) issues that most Americans don't want to hear about.
It's sort of as if the rest of America were being forced to listen to a country and western radio station, when a lot of us would like a little alternative or (even) jazz thrown in.
5. The author's suggestion that we give Florida the ability to decide the candidate would repeat the catastrophe of 2000.
I'm not suggesting that Florida decide the candidate. I'm saying let's let a big diverse state be part of the process. I'll also remind you that states like New Hampshire are no stranger to crooked politics. A number of Republicans have been indicted for the 2002 phone-jamming scam.
Ask John McCain, whose campaign was busted by crooked politicking in rural South Carolina, if small town politics are any cleaner than big-city elections...
Best,
Brian
"So you're arguing that those states picked Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and now Mr. Huckabee because they got to know those guys and realized they were the best candidates?"
Not exactly. I'm saying that they chose those candidates because they were the ones who campaigned heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire. It has more to do with the fact that those states have the earliest primaries, not because they are the most conservative. And I don't think it's anti-democratic. Admittedly, I'm a John Edwards supporter. I'm glad he's doing so well in Iowa because it means that he still has a viable shot at the candidacy, despite not having the (billionaires like Oprah and George Soros) resources that Obama and Clinton do. I think you're incorrect in suggesting that Iowa's opinion only reflects the most moderate and conservative Americans. I'd trust Edwards to fund social projects and strengthen unions over Clinton any day. Also, Huckabee is not leading in Iowa - Mitt Romney is, and he has an honest shot in most states.
"Cities and suburbs are where 80% of us live -- a percentage that will increase sharply over the next half-century. When you say you don't want "cities' interest" to become "too powerful" what you're really saying is you don't want average Americans' interests to become too powerful."
This point, I believe, I believe is more relevant to the question of who has the most power in Urban communities (which I'll get to below). Also, when I read the comments on this page, it was from people from West Virginia and Wyoming. At least some of the pressure to re-arrange the primary schedule is in the interest of shifting to a different rural population, not the interest of focusing on the majority of people/money in the country.
"This just isn't how it works. Cities elect minorities. And states with large minority populations elect minority candidates to statewide office. And if big urban states had more influence, it stands to reason that they would push more minorities to the top of the national political roster."
Yes, yes it is. Regrettably, minorities in large cities lack the political sway that the white CEOs in those cities have. Earlier I mentioned the city of Atlanta (large African American population); Sonny Perdue is governor of Georgia. I'm from Arizona (large Hispanic population); our senators are John Kyl and John McCain. Even the city of Los Angeles couldn't prevent Arnold Schwarzenegger from holding the highest office in that state. Need I even mention Texas?
More to the point, the candidates who historically perform the best in elections are the ones with the most financial backing. Giving increased political power to large cities is giving that power to the educated, upper-middle class population in those cities, for the simple reason that executives and professionals are able to mobilize voters on a much, much larger scale than poor inner-city people.
"Our media culture exaggerates the power of these states exponentially -- so that Iowa and New Hampshire CAN make or break a candidate. I think that's inappropriate for states that don't resemble (demographically or culturally) America as a whole."
This is different from the argument you made about the media in your original article. Here you are claiming that the media hijacks democracy when it declares that early states are powerful, so they become powerful. But originally - in the part about John McCain in New Hampshire - you were claiming that early wins naturally attract more news coverage, giving greater exposure to candidates. If the former is true, then pandering is inevitable and the media will always choose the candidate by highlighting the early primaries. Democracy is no more intact if that happens in Pennsylvania than if it happens in Iowa. If the latter, then public opinion wasn't strongly enough directed toward any one candidate for it to be legitimately called a subversion of public will; public opinion was weak and fickle, so the early wins shaped it.
As for point #5, I really just wanted my jab at Florida voters. :)
Best Thanksgiving wishes,
M.