Iowa as First-in-the-Nation

[downtown]

The solution is pretty easy...the parties say that they're going to rotate the schedule, and if a state party moves theirs up, they won't count the delegates. I suspect after Iowa's screwups this year, the Republicans may try to limit their influence a little.

The current system gives waaaay too much weight to evangelical voters and rural whites. There are states that are not super urbanized that give a more balanced demographic view. You can lose Ohio if all you do is just keep speeches in Columbus and Cleveland after all.

 

[Antilogic]

I would agree that there is no particular reason for Iowa-New Hampshire, except that it provides a known quantity. It makes organizing the early part a little easier, because everyone knows what to expect. But it could as easily be Maine or Vermont and someplace else. I don't think it would work as well to start someplace dominated by major cities. Once you're in the cities you are giving speeches to 100s or 1000s, not having conversations with a few and getting a 2 way discussion.

I don't know the solution to getting away from Iowa-New Hampshire. The problem is that whenever some other state tries to move theirs forward, those states just move theirs forward as well. And as these things are governed by the states and the state party organizations, this type of competition for the status of first means that the primary system either gets unacceptably front loaded, or unacceptably lengthy as the earliest ones get ever earlier. So it's not really within anyone's actual authority to institute a reform. The parties can threaten states with loss of delegates. But on the other hand they may not follow through on that. And even if they did, the state party may still see that as an acceptable tradeoff for the added influence they have on the final selection.

There are weaknesses to the system, I agree. Connecticut, as an example, ultimately has no influence on who are the eventual nominees. And neither does many other states. By the time we have our primaries, the matter is decided already.

The solution is pretty easy...the parties say that they're going to rotate the schedule, and if a state party moves theirs up, they won't count the delegates. I suspect after Iowa's screwups this year, the Republicans may try to limit their influence a little.

The only potential solution I see starts with the national parties disciplining the state parties to the point where the state parties actually defer to the national level (but as Cutlass points out, they still can exert influence on the election with limited delegates and thus may be immune to the stick if they always get their carrot). It's a Herculean task before we even get to the implementation of the reform stage.

Once the demand for reform is widespread and the state parties will go along with the the national-level parties, at least to some degree, the task is much easier because their is no statute that needs to be changed or constitutional amendment that must be ratified.

I'm not sure what the original quote (OQ?) is trying to say. Faithless electors make Iowa look bad? Wouldn't there be that risk even in a primary?

Basically yes. It's a matter of the state party being perceived as unreliable in the eyes of the national party, which the author seems to think will jeopardize their status as first-in-the-nation. It's pretty much a tacit admission that the state party knows the system is unfair and favorable to them, and they don't want slip-ups. Otherwise, people might become conscious of the fact that the system isn't fair and demand reform.