Our Primary Concern

For Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, victory in last Thursday’s Iowa caucuses means increased media exposure, a jump in donations, and a surge in polls nationwide. All of these gains supposedly justify the $30 million the candidates spent on advertising in Iowa and the approximately 350 visits to the state they made during the election season, which would otherwise be difficult to fathom considering Iowa’s few delegates.

We are deeply troubled by this system. It gives undue influence, during each election cycle, to a handful of states with early primaries or caucuses, while rendering the contests of states that vote late in the schedule almost meaningless. Nevertheless, we sympathize with the argument that a spread-out election schedule gives candidates the greatest opportunity to make their cases to voters in each state. Therefore, the best way to set up a fair primary would be to rotate the order that states vote in from cycle to cycle, ensuring that every state has an opportunity to be early, yet the candidates have enough time to make their case to each.

Iowans have undoubtedly benefited from their position in the schedule—their favorite political issues, such as ethanol subsidies, have received special attention; campaigns have flooded their economy with spending; and many have had the opportunity to see several of the candidates in person. Voters in states with later primaries, on the other hand, receive none of these benefits. Montana and South Dakota have their primaries on June 3rd this year, which means votes cast in those states will almost certainly be irrelevant. These voters are effectively disenfranchised, and are unlikely to receive attention from the candidates before the party conventions.

This inequality is unfair and undemocratic. According to a November National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, earlier voters can have up to 20 times the influence of later voters in the primaries. This distorts the issues that candidates focus on and shuts certain states out of the selection process. There is no reason we should allow Iowa or New Hampshire to hold a privileged position in primary season every four years. Instead of starting with the same states during every election, we ought to rotate the states that have the earliest primaries each time.

Nevertheless, suggestions that Democrats and Republicans should switch to a nationwide primary are misguided. Having all states vote simultaneously would disrupt the small scale of primaries that allows voters a close and detailed perspective on the candidates. In the tradition of retail politics, many voters can meet candidates in person and take time to get to know their positions. Second, the extended schedule allows candidates with relatively little money or national name recognition, such as Huckabee, to gain momentum on the strength of their appeal to voters who have plumbed their positions firsthand.

Lastly, we believe that states like Iowa that hold caucuses should switch to a traditional primary system. The caucus system itself is notoriously undemocratic. The process, which takes several hours and does away with the secret ballot, has been aptly described as arcane. In addition, voters who cannot make it to the primary because they are working, sick, or deployed overseas have no way to participate. The sampling of Iowan voters that make it to the caucuses—under 15 percent of the voting-age population, even with this year’s record turnouts—is therefore not necessarily representative of the state.

While the decision to abandon the primacy of the caucus system or the current primary schedule would be vigorously opposed by party leaders and special interests in the early states, we must recognize that the national interest and the integrity of our democratic system requires that we not disenfranchise other states. A rotating system would preserve the benefits of a drawn-out primary season while making the process fair for all constituencies.