Something I disagree with both Sanders and Clinton on: Screw Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s no surprise that candidates currently at the mercy of this system support it, but that doesn’t mean we have to!

Having their caucus/primary first gives voters in Iowa and New Hampshire a lot of weight. It’s estimated that a voter in Iowa or New Hampshire has five times the power of a voter on Super Tuesday. (Personally I think that’s a low estimate.)

This influence can manifest in some very specific ways (Remember that daily show segment on Chris Christie and pig farming?)

One very clear thing is that this system favors white voters over voters of color: Iowa is 88.7% non-hispanic white and New Hampshire is a whopping 92.3% non-hispanic white.

Advertisement

There are reasons to support having a couple of early primary/caucus states:

  • It gives lesser known (and less well-funded) candidates a chance to make a name for themselves.
  • It allows some candidates to be eliminated before larger contests.

NPR tries to figure out which states would be the best:

Advertisement

... but maybe it’s just better to pick two (or a few) random states every year?

I’ve also seen good arguments for having swing states go first. (As in the states that had the tightest results in the last presidential election should primary first four years later).

Advertisement

What do you think? Should we just have a one-day national primary? Would you want an early primary in your state? Or are you an anti-feminist, pro-establishment shill who supports the current system?