Against Iowa and New Hampshire

Whoever is elected President of the United States this November will face a world gripped by economic turmoil, wars in Afghanistan and Libya, a (possibly) nuclear Iran, and a belligerent North Korea. And how does America select the candidates for this office? By choosing the guy who shook the most hands at the Iowa State Fair or who kissed the most babies in small New Hampshire villages.

If Rick Santorum had received just nine more votes in Iowa, it would have been the second time (after Mike Huckabee’s win in 2008) that the state’s Republicans had chosen a winner who was unelectable in November, and who visited all ninety-nine of the state’s counties. Time and time again, the Iowa caucuses have boosted candidates with little credibility in terms of experience, competence, and electability, but who regale caucus-goers with their folksy, Jeffersonian rhetoric about how far removed they supposedly are from the political elite in Washington. Just look at the state’s record: first places for Jimmy Carter and Mike Huckabee, second places for Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Rick Santorum, while candidates who dare to challenge the state’s powerful ethanol lobby (such as John McCain in 2008) are virtually disqualified.

Political scientists have long argued that political parties serve as ‘heuristics’ which allow voters to choose between candidates who they know little or nothing about. In electoral contests where there are no party labels, the personal following of the candidate becomes the most important factor. In Southern Politics in State and Nation, V. O. Key famously made this observation about Democratic primaries in the pre-1960s South, where reformist and populist currents of opinion rose and fell because voters had little way of knowing which candidates for local office belonged to the same faction of the party as their preferred Governor or Senator, and where the Democratic primaries were ‘tantamount to election’ because of the GOP’s weakness. With the exception of a few contenders who lead an ideological faction (such as Ron Paul), this year’s Republican contest is subject to the same dynamic. There are no discernable policy differences between the main candidates, and so we have spent a year following the primary electorate flirt with one anti-Romney after another, until a defeated former Senator who was invisible throughout 2011 almost wins the Iowa caucuses because he rode the wave at just the right time.

Pundits have long queried the suitability of Iowa and New Hampshire to play their decisive role in the process on the basis of their lack of diversity. Critics mock Iowa’s one-crop economy or, as Matt Santos did in the final series of The West Wing (with his remark about the state resembling a ‘Mayflower reunion’), call out New Hampshire’s whiteness. For me, the problem isn’t so much that these two states are so white and rural, but that they’re small. With low enough turnout, a candidate with enough money and dedicated supporters can make an impact out of proportion to their national support. Why else would a group of libertarians have targeted New Hampshire to be the site of their Free State Project?

The solution? A national primary, possibly with a runoff for the top two candidates – it worked well for France’s Socialists last year. If not a national primary, then at least a series of regional, multi-state contests where reputation on the national stage would count more than personal contact with voters. An even better idea would be to use some form of proportional representation in congressional elections, so that niche candidates (Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Dennis Kucinich, etc.) could lead their own fringe parties instead of facing the uphill battle of trying to win over mainstream Democratic and Republican voters. Whatever the method, there has to a better way to choose the leader of the free world than this.