Looking to the disproportionate amounts of time, effort and money spent on the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary one can't help wondering if we should continue with things as they are, or try and put a better system in place.
Rather than going to the polls and casting ballots, I0wans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1784 precincts.They then proceed to elect the first link in a chain that ends with the election of national convention delegates. Republicans and Democrats hold their caucuses according to their own rules.
The Democratic caucus participants don't vote by secret ballot. They must publicly state their opinion and vote. In such a system they are bound to face peer pressures and may ultimately end up voting for somebody other than their first choice.The Iowa caucuses last a long time.People don't come unless they can spare a few hours and absentee voting is not allowed. Only about 10-15% of the voters go to the caucuses.The rules of vote counting are complex. Suffice it to say that it is not a simple popular vote.
Unlike Iowa, New Hampshire is a primary, and each candidate receives votes directly rather than through precinct delegates. Since it is a popular vote, it gives lesser known candidates a chance to pull ahead.
Both are small states, predominantly white, and less urbanized than their larger counterparts.There is a question mark on whether they are truly representative of the entire country. As for reliability, Bill Clinton finished fourth in Iowa in 1992, polling 3% of the Democratic vote, yet he went on to win his party's nomination and the Presidency.
'Super Tuesday' is yet to come, but the winners in the two states are considered to indicate the prevailing political trends in the country. So the rational question is, why not have a national primary in the US. The idea would be to hold a national primary on a single day.Each state would be free to choose the type of balloting that is best suited to its citizens and traditions.If one candidate wins a majority, he or she would receive the state's delegates to the national convention. If not there would be a run-off between the top two in each state and in each party, again on a fixed date.Such an idea was first proposed in 1911 in a bill introduced in Congress.It was dropped when it appeared a constitutional amendment would be necessary.A host of other ideas have been suggested, which although not amounting to a national primary,seek to streamline the present system.
We are a vast and diverse country. Every voter deserves a chance to express his or her opinion on as many candidates as possible.Instead under the present system early victories tend to freeze an agenda in place, and that too by states which are not truly representative of the American people.
Many candidates, particularly those with fewer financial resources are compelled to drop out after the first few rounds simply because they run short of money. Money now plays an important role in determining the electability of a candidate. This may happen even though the candidate is more popular in the larger and more urbanized states, where the majority of the American electorate lives.
If at all the present system is to be followed then the same states should not be allowed to hold their primaries first every time. The order should be shuffled. Other states have tried to bring their primaries forward, only to find that Iowa and New Hampshire have moved their dates even further in order to remain number one.This makes the primary too far removed from actual election and therefore less reliable.This year the caucus and the primary in these two states has been held almost ten months before the actual vote on November 4th. A lot can happen between now and then.