The Absurd Roles of Iowa and New Hampshire in Presidential Campaigns

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Although thought to promote participatory democracy and diminish the power of party insiders in the selection of presidential nominees, the post-1968 reforms in favor of binding primaries and caucuses resulted in unintended consequences. Nothing has been more absurd than the influential roles of Iowa and New Hampshire. Although this time around far more states decided on holding their primaries or caucuses very early next year, this frontloading trend has not diminished the starring roles of the first two states. Iowa and New Hampshire may not decide the ultimate presidential nominees of the two major parties, but voters in these states are likely to affect the outcome--if only by narrowing down the fields from which their compatriots in other states can select the candidates of their choice.
The media hype surrounding the 2008 presidential race intensified after the 2006 off-year elections and focused once again disproportionately on Iowa and New Hampshire. Thus, from January 1 through December 15, 2007, ABC News, CBS News and NBC News combined aired 324 segments about or mentioning “Iowa and caucuses” and 343 that reported on or mentioned “New Hampshire and primary or primaries” according to the Lexix/Nexis archive. In spite of this sustained media attention that actually is shared by the international press as well one wonders what people here and abroad know about the first caucus and primary states.   
Judging from the importance of these two states, who would guess that Iowa has a population of only 3 million—less than 1% of the total U.S. population of more than 303 million.  New Hampshire’s population is less than 1.5 million and thus less than ½% of the U.S. total. In terms of demography, about 91% of the population in Iowa and about 97% of New Hampshire residents are white and thus far from representative of the nation at large.
How democratic is a candidate selection system that gives two tiny, unrepresentative states a disproportionate influence at the expense of the vast majority of voters? And this does not even take into account the undemocratic way in which the Democratic Party in Iowa reports the results of its caucuses as explained in a recent New York Times op-ed piece

To be sure, some pundits and political consultants tell us that the advantage of these early decision states is precisely the fact that they have small populations and allow candidates retail campaigning instead of relying solely on mass-mediated communication with voters. This is thought to be particularly advantageous for less known and less well financed candidates who would not have a chance if they had to campaign in large states.  But in reality the media are all over Iowa and New Hampshire and present at literally all campaign events. There is hardly any pure retail campaigning left: if the press is not present, someone in the crowd will record whatever is said and done. No candidate can dare to be spontaneous but must at all times follow the script. As for Iowa and New Hampshire, the flood of campaign ads and the influx of an army of domestic and international media people are good for their economies as are the opportunities for free publicity and public relations.
But apart from the much courted and disproportionately important voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, the mass of eligible voters in America are the losers in a system that is ripe for a sensible reform.

 

Comments

[Ute Pannen]

This system is really strange, especially from my german perspective it is hard to see the advantages. But people in berlin are exited about the results of tonight.