What’s the big deal with Iowa and New Hampshire?

Anyone following the presidential primaries knows the candidates are spending most of their time campaigning in these two states. Far from the top in terms of population — Iowa is 30th in the country, New Hampshire 42nd — these two states receive much of the time and devotion of the candidates simply by virtue of being first.

The Iowa caucus is the first presidential contest in the United States, taking place on Jan. 3, and the New Hampshire primary is the first presidential primary, on Jan. 8. The candidates who win Iowa and New Hampshire often find themselves on the fast track to their party’s nomination, but their big boost is based on the opinion of less than 1.5 percent of the American population.

Our primary system is broken. Iowa and New Hampshire, along with other early voting states like South Carolina, have too much influence on the process of who gets selected to run for president.

Iowa is the biggest problem. Their caucus system is undemocratic. The Democratic and Republican caucuses operate differently, but the basic premise of a caucus is that voters gather in their caucus location — usually someone’s residence — and then debate and discuss the candidates. They vote, and if the candidate one voter selected does not get enough of the vote, they can switch your vote to another choice.

The biggest problem with the Iowa caucus system is very few people participate in it, only about 100,000 of the more than 3 million people in the state. Voters often aren’t willing or able to give up several hours of their time in order to participate.

But despite its flaws, the Iowa caucus unfortunately is still extremely influential. Until Howard Dean flopped in Iowa in 2004, everyone thought he was the man for Democrats to beat. John Kerry won, John Edwards came in second, and their victories in Iowa set them up as a rather pathetic Democratic ticket.
Iowa has too much influence for a small state. Iowa, quite simply, is not that important. Certain issues that matter to Iowans, such as subsidies for ethanol production, mean nothing to voters in other states. When candidates pander to Iowans, they’re forced to ignore larger issues the rest of the country cares about.

Leaders in Iowa are insistent that they get the first election contest each year because it’s the only reason their state remains even slightly relevant in the process, but there’s no reason why Iowa’s primary selection should matter more than any other state.

I live in Ohio, the swing state that has decided the last two presidential elections. One would think our opinion in the primaries would therefore be extremely important.

But Ohio holds its primary in March, by which time the candidates for both parties have already been picked. Actually, usually the candidates have been crowned by the time South Carolina comes around, giving most of America no say in the process.

Many states, including large ones like Michigan and Florida, have reacted on their frustration at having no voice in the process by moving up their primaries. But for doing so, Michigan and Florida have been punished by the parties for not following the traditional process of giving a few states all the attention from the candidates.

The biggest problem with the current process is that the candidates have to spend too much time in small-town living rooms and diners in Iowa and New Hampshire. Citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire get to meet the candidates. They can feel as if they know them. But residents of the other 48 states — 98.5 percent of the population — do not.

The United States should switch to a national primary, with voters in each state casting ballots on a single day. Candidates would have to make an attempt to meet people across the country, not just in two tiny states. A national primary would eliminate the influence of the early states and give all Americans an equal voice in picking the candidates.

Benjamin Van Der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.