What Did — And Didn’t — Go Down In The Iowa Caucuses

I agree with you two. I generally like a system where we go from smaller states to larger ones, with accommodations made to ensure the smaller states are representative. I think a fairly easy fix would be removing Iowa from the equation and starting off with New Hampshire, a Nevada primary, then South Carolina. Then you could have a handful of representative biggish states like Illinois or Florida, followed by a bonanza on Super Tuesday.

I’m with you, Nate. I don’t really want a national primary, but rather some sort of primary where states with combinations of roughly equal and representative populations cast ballots on four or five dates. Or maybe the oft-suggested regional primary system, where you rotate which region goes first from cycle to cycle. Candidates do benefit from the experience of campaigning.

For what it’s worth … I see a lot of folks saying that all states should vote at once in the primaries. I don’t have time for a longer take on this, but I actually think the sequential nature of the primaries isn’t a problem — in fact, it’s potentially a more robust process. Voters get to react to previous results, and candidates have to show some stamina and endurance. They can’t benefit just by happening to have the whole election conducted in the midst of a favorable news cycle. BUT I think you have to create some incentives so that there isn’t a huge benefit to going first. That probably means some combination of (i) giving a larger delegate bonus to states that vote later in the process — the DNC already does this, but it could use a more aggressive weighting scheme — and (ii) allowing later-voting states to be partially winner-take-all.