And so it was that the candidates departed the cornfields of Iowa for the Granite State, where they would again go into small cafes and blueberry festivals. They’ll go to the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee and the convenience stores of Nashua, and then they will stand for election in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary, if one doesn’t count the Iowa or Wyoming caucuses. And when the votes are tallied, one thing will be absolutely clear: this is no way to pick a president.
There is nothing wrong with New Hampshire, of course, nor with Iowa, nor Wyoming or South Carolina or any of the other states that hold primaries or caucuses before Super Duper Tuesday in February. But the system that took us to Iowa last Thursday and to New Hampshire this Tuesday is, to put it nicely, insane. On the Democratic side, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., appears poised to win in New Hampshire, and thus to have essentially wrapped up the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Never mind that 48 states and the District of Columbia have yet to weigh in on the matter; any pundit will tell you that momentum is obviously on the side of Obama and clearly against Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who is obviously in second place nationally now. Of course, Clinton looks ready to come in second after coming in third in Iowa, which will likely be the opposite of former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., who came in second in Iowa and will come in third in New Hampshire. But everyone knows that Edwards is certainly out of the running, while Clinton can at least soldier on a bit more.
And the Democratic field looks to be a bastion of sanity compared with what’s going on in the Republican Party. At least Obama will have won two states; he’ll be the clear front-runner. For the Republicans, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won Iowa, but is definitely not the leader, or so we’re told. Neither is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who came in second in Iowa and won the Wyoming caucuses on Saturday — except we don’t count the Wyoming caucuses, because traditionally New Hampshire comes after Iowa, so they’re being studiously ignored.
No, the current leader among the Republicans is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who came in fourth in Iowa behind former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., and tied for fourth in Wyoming with no delegates, behind Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. , who got one delegate. (Then again, nobody takes Hunter seriously, so best to ignore him.) Now McCain looks like he might win in New Hampshire, so he’ll be in the driver’s seat, at least until we hit the next set of caucuses.
If you’re getting the sense that our system of selecting presidential nominees doesn’t have much to do with actual election results, you’re right. One can make the case that Obama is rising in the Democratic field because he’s running a great campaign that connects with new voters, or one can make the case that he’s rising because Clinton came in third in Iowa and subsequently faced a barrage of negative press. One can make the case that McCain’s fourth-place showing in Iowa doesn’t matter because he didn’t run hard there, and therefore a win in New Hampshire is a win in his first major test. One can also make the case that a national winner should be competitive nationally.
And therein lies the problem: none of this has anything to do with who’s winning more votes or delegates, and everything to do with pundits and journalists reading tea leaves and telling the masses what it all means. Should Obama win New Hampshire, as appears likely, the press will dutifully report that he’s now a prohibitive favorite for the nomination. And that will draw voters to him. Should McCain win New Hampshire, as appears probable, the press will report on the McCain resurgence. And that will draw voters to him.
Indeed, the story the press tells becomes the story of the nomination. Romney’s one first and two seconds will be viewed as a failure, while McCain’s one first and two fourths will be viewed as success, because that’s how the narrative goes. And Romney will suffer because of it, while McCain rises.
This is no way to select a president. Yes, the images of Huckabee or Edwards eating at a diner in Laconia are swell, but they’re not particularly useful. No, it’s time for us to start running a presidential primary based on actual voter preference, rather than media narrative.
It wouldn’t have to be hard. Divide the country up into five groups of states, starting with the 10 smallest, then next-10 smallest, and so forth. Run 10-state primaries every other week from the first Tuesday of February through the first Tuesday of April. If you want, put Iowa and New Hampshire in the first group for old-time’s sake. Craft a federal law that sets basic criteria for the primary: the value of each state in delegates, the means of apportioning delegates. Give the parties some input, but make this a federally operated election — meaning it’s time to eliminate caucuses, and replace them with primaries.
Some will cry foul. Are we not tampering with the state-by-state process our Founding Fathers envisioned? In a word, no. The Founding Fathers figured that members of a party would pick a standard-bearer, and didn’t really worry about how that happened. That meant that until the middle of the 20th century, those decisions were made in proverbial smoke-filled rooms, with citizens cut off from the process. Our current system evolved out of the bad old days, a quasi-functional procedure that gave some of the power to the people, but not, frankly, very much. Iowa is the first caucus in the nation because it’s the first caucus in the nation; ditto New Hampshire and its claim to being the first primary. Neither state was selected because it was particularly representative or their populations particularly politically astute; they just got there first, and now hold on to their positions by vowing to penalize any presidential candidate who doesn’t pledge fealty to those states. And the candidates gladly do so, because as Romney can tell you, Iowa and New Hampshire matter more than other states because that’s what everyone says.
It doesn’t matter how we divide up the states and structure a better system. Divide them by region, draw lots, pick based on literacy rates or ratings for “According to Jim.” Use instant runoff voting or allow a plurality to decide. But divide up the states, and set up a true and fair primary system that recognizes and prioritizes votes instead of the narrative. Because the presidency is too important a position to select in a sloppy, half-assed manner. And we shouldn’t let another cycle go by without fixing the system.
(Cross-posted from Minnesota Monitor)
