The following is an editorial written by a friend of The Stone Blog, concerning the upcoming caucuses:
Here we go again. It seems just as we finish electing a president, its time to start the quadrennial quest for the top job in country and accompanying that quest, the drive to wrest from Iowa its first-in-the-nation caucuses.
Iowa has been the focus of jealousy and envy since the 1976 presidential election cycle when then unknown, Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, gained national notoriety when he campaigned hard and won support from Democrats in Iowa. Iowa political parties, perhaps without intent, had moved their previously under-attended and unnoticed precinct caucuses to March, thereby perhaps accidentally, gaining this premier status.
Iowa has been the focus of early attention since, and proudly presents itself as well-deserving of its prime location, just weeks ahead of the New Hampshire presidential preference poll. But not without repeated sniping at our favored position. Other states covet the estimated $200 million dollars pumped into our state when both parties had an open nomination, as was true in 2000. Iowans should be tired of having to continually defend our position to those who are desirous of sharing—no, confiscating for themselves, our prized position.
Does Iowa deserve its first-place position? Our detractors claim we are unrepresentative since we have so many white voters, and so few minorities. I submit that Iowa has a population that is politically astute, cares, and yes, carefully considers the candidates as few other states could do as effectively. We have a level playing field, no political machines, a well-educated population, an efficient and easily accessed media market, and we are open-minded when looking at the potential candidates. Iowans seem cognizant of the issues and we look at the candidates with a questioning eye, ready to examine them, face-to-face, and ask tough questions. What other state could potentially do the same, and thus present itself as being more representative?
Question. If we are truly unrepresentative as some suggest, then which state deserves this prime position? The Democrat National Committee just recently allowed the insertion of the state of Nevada between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Does Nevada fit anybody’s definition of being more representative of the nation? And if not, which state / states would fulfill this assignment? Ohio? Texas? New Mexico? Florida? Please name the state that a consensus could agree is more representative, thus more deserving of our primer status?
Perhaps it is time for the national government to enter the field and establish some standards regarding this electoral quagmire we find ourselves in. Many members of the U.S. House and Senate, especially conservatives, shy away from getting involved in state political business. But, I submit, we have already been involved in state electoral affairs, when the national government has concerned itself with voting, (1965 Voting Rights Act), voting at age 18, (26th Amendment), and recently, in 2002, the Help America Vote Act, requiring local entities to provide certain standard voting machines and election procedures. Thus, what could be more important than assuring a fair, open, selection of the president through the political parties? It is imperative this quest for the nomination is regulated to assure fairness and to prevent it becoming a free-for-all among the various states. Important? Yes.
Here is a much-needed reform. It’s nothing that hasn’t been presented before by others, it just now becomes more and more imperative to avoid the uncertainty, sniping, and the discouraging pre-election chaotic political maneuvering. I submit this may be the only way Iowa can survive this onslaught of criticism. The future of Iowa’s caucuses and its favorable economic impact may be at stake.
Let’s start the presidential sweepstakes no earlier than late March. The campaign presently starts much too early. And each election it seems to be moving earlier and earlier, as jealous state try to trump our position. Although a few months (January to March) may not seem significant, the result should be less pressure to win the first states early or give up ones fight for the nomination. And, it gets the early caucus and primary out of the depths of winter, which can and often does affect turnout of the party faithful. We may currently be, in fact, front-loading the presidential sweepstakes so that later states never have any practical impact. And an early decision may not always be in the best interests of the parties.
And also, then establish that the long-respected, traditional, well-deserving states of Iowa and New Hampshire continue to be first. For the reasons indicated before we deserve this option. Note the number of candidates and former candidates, John Kerry, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and Bill Clinton to name a few, who support Iowa’s continued precedence; these people know why Iowa and New Hampshire deserve their place.
Then let’s adopt a regional plan, whereby states can’t and don’t need to vie for a more prestigious place in the political scene to the gain the notoriety each individually believes it deserves. Let’s develop five regions: Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Midsouth, and far Western areas, each region having all caucuses or primaries on the same day rotating among the five regions with each succeeding Presidential election..
Thus, for example, the 2012 election would have Iowa caucuses first, followed by the New Hampshire primary in latter March or early April, then perhaps the Western states holding their votes a couple of weeks later. Then in 2016 the Southeast region would take its turn following Iowa and New Hampshire. This suggestion would give each region an early spot at least once in every five presidential elections, plus candidates could focus money and people in a specific region, and the media markets, which often overlap state lines, would not be wasted. Both political parties should approve, as it eliminates one more contentious issue they seem to be required to deal with before each election.
The campaigns are simply too long. Iowa deserves its status as a first test of candidates’ strength. Regionalism allows primer status to certain nearby states whose interests may still be varied. This proposal compacts the campaign season, and candidates know early where and when to focus their attention. For the good of our national political scene, we would be foolish not to adopt more definitive guidelines in this area.
(Posted with permission from Philip L. Stone)
