Is it too soon to talk about reforming the presidential primary system?
Reforms take a long time, so no, it’s not too soon. (It was a rhetorical question).
Longtime readers know that I despise the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary retaining their “first in the nation” status. Their lily white rural populations have been skewing our politics for far too long. They are in no way representative of the diverse population of he United States.
It is nothing more than a political “cottage industry” to attract large sums of media money being spent in these states on political ads and other campaign related expenditures. What right do these states have to maintain a profit-making monopoly?
Paul Waldman of the Washington Post recently wrote that “It’s not too early to start working to liberate America from the tyranny of Iowa and New Hampshire.” Amen to that, brother! Our primary system is a mess. Democrats should put reform on their agenda. (excerpt):
So as long as Democrats are putting such a focus on restoring and securing our democracy, they ought to finally do the right thing and make their presidential nominating contest more democratic.
Which is why Democrats in Nevada, particularly former Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, think the time is right to finally liberate the party from the tyranny of Iowa and New Hampshire:
Reid, a party kingmaker who secured Nevada’s No. 3 spot on the calendar in 2008, has been making the case for Nevada to one of the top aides to Biden, who as president has significant influence on the Democratic National Committee. Nevada Democrats also plan to make their case in the coming months to the DNC, which sets the party’s nominating process. Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic-majority Legislature is set to consider legislation that would shift Nevada’s caucuses to a primary and make it the first contest in the states.
They have a good case to make that Nevada is a far better representation of today’s Democratic Party than heavily rural, almost all-White Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s racially diverse, has a strong union presence and is much more pleasant to campaign in during the winter months.
* * *
We can joke about this, but it’s serious: The most important contests of the presidential nominating campaign are deeply undemocratic, and if Democrats are going to continue to make the case against the other undemocratic features of our system, they ought to clean up their own house.
And while it’s going to be somewhere between difficult and impossible to get rid of the electoral college or reform the Senate any time soon, reforming the primary system is something they could do relatively easily.
One important step would be to get rid of caucuses entirely. Caucuses are an abomination that restrict participation to a tiny portion of the electorate and systematically exclude entire classes of people who can’t stand around in a gym for three hours on a Tuesday night, including people with disabilities and many hourly shift workers.
Which is why almost no one shows up to them. In Iowa, turnout in the 2020 general election was 73 percent; in the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses it was a pathetic 9 percent. In Nevada, things were was just as bad: 65 percent turnout in the general election; just 5 percent in the caucuses. Even if the Iowa caucuses hadn’t been a logistical catastrophe — that was an entire year ago; you might have forgotten — they still wouldn’t have represented the wishes of the Democratic electorate.
Which is why, if Nevada wants to be first in the country, the first thing it should do is follow through on switching to a primary. At least New Hampshire boasted a respectable 42 percent primary turnout, compared with 76 percent in the general election.
New Hampshire is the biggest impediment to Nevada’s plans, because a state law there requires that its primary be held at least seven days before any other state’s. (Iowa has a similar law requiring that its caucus be the first.) But state laws can change.
Iowa and New Hampshire won’t go down without a fight. In addition to loving the fact that presidential candidates treat them like kings every four years, the two states’ political activists have convinced themselves that they deserve to have an elevated role in the process because they’re so thoughtful and serious about it. There is very little evidence to support that belief.
If Iowa and New Hampshire were too recalcitrant about giving up some of their power in the service of democracy, perhaps the federal government could make them an offer they can’t refuse. The withdrawal of federal funds can focus the mind.
I’m kidding — not that such a thing shouldn’t happen, but it won’t. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal shouldn’t be just replacing Iowa and New Hampshire with Nevada at the front of the line. It should be getting rid of the whole idea of privileging one state and its idiosyncratic concerns over everyone else’s.
There are plenty of proposals out there for alternate formats. For instance, some years ago Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) introduced a plan for rotating regional primaries, which would allow the opportunity for every American to be pandered to at least once every few elections.
That could be the solution, or it could be some other idea. But if Democrats really want to show their commitment to reform that strengthens and enhances democracy, they ought to add reform of the primaries to their agenda.
In an interview with the New York Times, former D.N.C. chairman Tom Perez said Iowa and New Hampshire starting the presidential nominating process was “unacceptable.” Reid Epstein writes, Tom Perez on Democrats’ Mistakes and Why Iowa Shouldn’t Go First (excerpt):
Should Iowa and New Hampshire keep going first in the presidential nominating process?
That will be up to the D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee.
I’m aware. But what does the private citizen Tom Perez think?
A diverse state or states need to be first. The difference between going first and going third is really important. We know the importance of momentum in Democratic primaries.
I’ll try one more time. Could you make a case for defending Iowa and New Hampshire going first?
The status quo is clearly unacceptable. To simply say, “Let’s just continue doing this because this is how we’ve always done it,” well, Iowa started going as an early caucus state, I believe, in 1972. The world has changed a lot since 1972 to 2020 and 2024. And so the notion that we need to do it because this is how we’ve always done it is a woefully insufficient justification for going first again.
This is the Democratic Party of 2020. It’s different from the Democratic Party in how we were in 1972. And we need to reflect that change. And so I am confident that the status quo is not going to survive.
New DNC Chair Jaime Harrison could make a strong argument for moving up the South Carolina primary as well.
The days of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary going first should be over.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
POLITICO reports, “It might just be game over for the Iowa caucuses”, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/18/iowa-caucus-469735
The two states with privileged places on the presidential primary calendar are finding their roles more threatened than ever before — most recently in the form of a bill introduced in Nevada this week to move that state’s nominating contest to the front of the line in 2024.
On its own, the Nevada encroachment would mean little. For years, Iowa and New Hampshire have successfully defended their one-two position from states eager to jump ahead. But the combination of Iowa’s botched 2020 caucus and increasing diversity in the Democratic Party’s ranks has made the whiteness of Iowa and New Hampshire all the more conspicuous, putting the two states on their heels and throwing the 2024 calendar into turmoil.
“There’s no reason in the world that those states should go forward so early, because they’re not representative of what 90 percent of the country’s all about,” said former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who remains influential in party politics. “America looks different than it did 50 years ago, when these traditions were put in place, and the Democratic electorate looks really different.”
He added, “It’s no longer palatable, as far as I’m concerned, for those states to take precedence over states like South Carolina and Nevada.”
The legislation marked the first real offensive in what is likely to be a drawn-out war over the outline of the 2024 presidential nominating process.
A bill that would change Nevada’s presidential caucus to a primary and make it the first nominating contest in the country has been unveiled. Harry Reid isn’t messing around!
The Las Vegas Sun reports, “Legislation to make Nevada the first presidential primary is unveiled”, https://lasvegassun.com/news/2021/feb/15/bill-to-make-nevada-1st-presidential-primary-is-un/
The legislation from Nevada Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson, a Democrat, calls for Nevada to hold the primary on the second-to-last Tuesday in January. It would include 10 days of early voting that wraps up the Friday before the election.
The primary would be run by the state, instead of the caucuses run by political parties, and would be a separate election from a June primary held to pick party nominees and narrow the field of candidates for federal, state and local offices.
The bill comes on the heels of the chaotic 2020 Iowa caucuses, where because of days-long delays in reporting results, many Democrats — including Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez — supported an end to caucuses outright.
“Nevada made great strides to make caucuses more accessible, but the nature of a caucus limits the ability to make it more inclusive,” Frierson said in a statement. “The time has come for Nevada to move to a primary and to move to the front of the line when it comes to nominating a president.”
Lawmakers pushing for the change to establish Nevada as the first in the nominating process cite the state’s diversity over the two states currently at the front of the line, Iowa and New Hampshire.
It’s been a goal of former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has long held that Nevada’s diverse population means it should be the first state to vote.
“I firmly believe that Nevada, with our broad diversity that truly reflects the rest of the country, should not just be among the early states,” Reid said to the New York Times in February 2020. “We should be the first in the nation.”
“We’re going to have conversations with our national partners and our other state leaders who also have an interest,” Frierson said. “What we’ve seen is that Nevada has been a better barometer of where the country is going.”
He said it was important to work on the measure during the ongoing legislative session so the state would have time to get ready for the 2024 presidential election. Primaries are run by states, and would therefore cost money, though it would cost nothing until 2024. Frierson was unsure of a price tag but said he was working to get that number.
“Nevada’s already been first in the West and I think we’ve shown, by reflecting a diverse constituency and a diverse population, that it’s worthwhile for candidates to find out what folks in Nevada are thinking,” Frierson said.
A great reform would be to prohibit Chuck Schumer from picking our Senate candidates for us. How’s the filibuster supporting & $15.00 minimum wage opponent Kyrsten Sinema working out?
I agree with your logic but have to recognize that the results of the current Democratic Party system have been pretty good. Wish I could say the same for the Republican’s system.