Unintended Consequences

During the 2004 election cycle there was much talk about how the Democrats "front-loaded" their primary calendar. More states were moved up to February and March of that year in an attempt to produce a nominee more quickly (thus allowing more time for the candidate to focus on the general election), and who was chosen by a more "representative" group of states.

Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally held the first caucus and primary (respectively), and therefore held a great deal of influence in selecting a party's nominee. If one spent the year leading up to the primary "running" for office and were unable to win in these small states with easily idintifiable constituencies, how could that person hope to win nationally? Anything less than a win in one of the two states spells doom for a presidential hopeful.Since the Republicans did not have a true primary in '04 they deferred to the Democrats' will for the primary calendar. It appears the Republicans, for reasons that are not totally clear, are deferring to the Blue Team again this year.

The earlier a state has their primary, the more important that state is in the nomination process. Since every state wants to be important, every state wants to move up. If the Democrats gave the go-ahead to a given state, that state went ahead and moved up the election.

Several months ago the Dems decided that they did not like the demographic make-ups of Iowa and New Hampshire. In a political move to appear more "diverse" they allowed two states, South Carolina and Nevada (which both contain larger populations of minorities) to move their primaries up to the period historically reserved for only Iowa and New Hampshire.

As with most moves that are purely political, this has had terrible unintendid consequences.

Iowa and New Hampshire have been in the front of the pack for over 50 years. Once this precedent became established no state dared to challenge their role. This was based on respect for history/tradition and was enforced by national party influence in the states. There were some serious problems with having two small, rural, unrepresentative states go first, but there were many benefits, too. The biggest was that it forced candidates to have a mini-election wherein they could focus all their efforts, staff, and funds. This was a great equalizer because it gave a fair shot to weaker, less-well-funded candidates. Kerry had way less money than Dean, but that fact was negated by the size of Iowa and the low expense of advertising there.

Now this political move has created a race to the front of the calendar among the states.

This has more negative consequences than it has benefits. Here is a short list:

• It allows states to rig their vote to give a particular candidate an edge. Case in point: Illinois legislatures have openly suggested moving up their state's primary to give an edge to Barack Obama's presidential bid.
  
  
• Since many of the states vying for an early position are heavily populated this will make money an even bigger influence in politics. No cheap Des Moines ads. Hello Los Angels tv market. Hello New York (New Jersey wants an early vote). If you can't raise $20-40 million dollars by January 1^st you will not have a fighting chance. Say goodbye to any "dark horse" candidates.
  
  
• It will make an already painfully long political season even painfully longer. As if most Americans were not already disenchanted by politcal ads, this has the potential to be the Mack truck that broke the camel's back. The moderate/swing voters may grow so disenchanted that many of them simply choose not to vote.
  
  
• Iowa and New Hampshire both have state laws requiring their vote be a week or more ahead of any other primaries. New Hampshire could realistically be voting in December. This may have been a benefit in the world of the pony express, but it's little more than ridiculous in the world of the Internet.
  
  
• Another big benefit of the shorter-but-more-spread-out primary season was that it forced candidates to survive a series of battles that would often--though obviously not always--produce stronger nominees. This negates that effect, as more states will be early, and therefore the nominee will be identified after the onslaught of early states posts their results.

Bottom line: more money, only "celebrity candidates", weaker nominees, a more disenchanted pool of "undecided" swing voters.

The last of that list is particularly important. A smaller pool of swing voters makes "base politics" more important. And base politics is part of what has bread the American political Freakshow. If this indeed is the case, it would give the media even more incentive to hype, distort, and sell soap opera politics, rather than dealing with policy substance, or even candidate quality. Drama, in-fighting, sensationalism, and the like will rule the day to an even greater extent.

Politics-only moves are never good. This one, in particular, is going to reshape the landscape of American politics, and in largely negative ways. Hopefully my analysis is wrong, and this ends up being the solution to what has been the "unrepresentativeness" of Iowa and New Hampshire. But just as prescriptions can have side effects, so can politically-minded moves.