The Leapfrog Primaries
If you’ve ever wondered why the early months of the presidential election season give so much focus to bizarre bellwether states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the best answer you’ll get is: “Because shut up. That’s why.” The early primary states have proud, long-winded narratives about how they earned their place as the first judges of national candidate character, but the fact of the matter is that some states go first simply because they always have, even when rationality undermines every bit of their appeal.
The latest event in the byzantine game that is American presidential elections deals with the Republican Party’s primary dates. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada have traditionally held their primary elections well before the other states, despite the fact that it is historically unprecedented–and all but mathematically impossible–that any of those states will play a decisive role in the election of the president. (More on that later.) The Republican National Convention technically guarantees them this leading date, which goes to show how much influence the RNC actually has on things beyond its own budget.
Now, Florida and Maine are attempting to move their primary dates up to late January or early February, before the leading Iowa caucuses on February 6. (February 6? That’s right, even though there have already been more Republican Primary debates this year than there were general election debates in 2008, the first primary is still four months away.)
Florida has a pretty good case for why its primaries should come first: it has economic and ethic diversity that is lacking, to say the least, in Iowa, not to mention the fact that it has electoral votes that, you know, matter in the general election. Iowa and New Hampshire have ten electoral votes combined, less than half of Florida’s, so it’s small wonder that 2000 didn’t find anyone counting hanging chads in Des Moines. The population of large states like California, Texas, and New York makes it so that candidates could win the presidency without a single vote from any resident of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and about thirty other states.
Let’s leave aside the fact the current “first primary” states are all but insignificant in the general election. Pundits and poll junkies like to point out that because they lead the charge, these early primaries wield extra influence in terms of donor confidence, news cycle coverage, and vaguely-defined “momentum” for the candidates. Too bad that’s complete bull: the only reason that early primaries tend to pick winning candidates is that a large proportion of their selections in recent years have been unopposed incumbent presidents.
I know this is a lot of information, but try to let this sink in: the early primary states are so concerned about Florida’s chronological advancement that they are considering moving their own primaries up even more in response. At some point, you’ve got to wonder if voters in November 2012 will have forgotten not only who won Iowa, but even that winner’s very existence.
In the face of all of this, I can’t help but think of Jimmy Smits’ character on The West Wing, who shamelessly belittles New Hampshire’s voting significance even as he courts their support. As he points out, it seems almost laughable that we put faith in the predictive powers of a population that has more cultural, ethnic, and economic similarity to the population of the Mayflower than the modern United States.
One of many reasons why real life would be better if it was written by Aaron Sorkin.
Maybe our whole system needs a do-over. Kelsey Berkowitz has the answers.