By Justin Wax Jacobs
It’s Caucus day in Iowa. The first votes of the 2016 Presidential
election have been cast and the first delegates will be assigned. It is the
official start of an election process which, by some estimates, began the
morning after Election Day 2012.
Do to their status as early voting states Iowa and New Hampshire
have an oversized impact on the primary process. Presidential candidates from
both parties are usually chosen from a field narrowed by the voters and caucus
goers in these states.
Iowa and New Hampshire can make or break a Presidential campaign. In
2004 Senator John Kerry’s campaign for the Democratic nomination was buoyed by
his success in the Hawkeye state, even though many viewed him as a long shot
for the nomination prior to the caucuses. In 2008 Rudy Giuliani’s strategy to
forgo Iowa and New Hampshire completely, instead choosing to focus his campaign
efforts in Florida, derailed his bid for the Republican nomination.
But why should these two states be given the power to decide who
gets nominated to represent their parties as candidates for President of the
United States? Iowa, with a population of 3.5 million and six electoral votes,
and New Hampshire, with a population of 1.3 million and four electoral votes,
are relatively small states. Even Puerto Rico, an American territory which
participates in Presidential primaries but not general elections, has a larger
population of American citizens. These two sparsely populated states also have
a demographic makeup which are not reflective of the country’s as a whole, with
88.7 percent of Iowans and 92.3 percent of New Hampshirites identifying as
non-Hispanic White compared to 63.7 percent in the United States overall.
For those on the left an additional grievance may be tallied. The
core support for the Democratic Party emanates from the country’s large urban
areas. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia have long
been known, as Senator Ted Cruz has recently implied, for their liberal
constituencies. By contrast, Iowa and New Hampshire have few urban centers.
Only three cities, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Manchester, from these two
states have populations over 100,000. The largest of the three, Des Moines
population 203,433, doesn’t even crack the top one hundred list of American
cities by population. It is safe to say that the Democratic voters in these two
states are not indicative of the broader urban liberal base throughout the
nation.
While foreigners may have legitimate grievances against both Iowa
and New Hampshire for their oversized role in the candidate selection
process, many overlook the positives of having these two states leadoff the
election calendar.
Iowa and New Hampshire’s place at the head of the voting schedule
insures a larger array of potential Presidential candidates. Due to their size
both states are populated by relatively cheap media markets. Compared to states
like New York, California and Florida which have the expensive markets of New
York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Miami, Iowa and New Hampshire offer
candidates a cheaper conduit to communicate with voters. Less expensive fees to
air television commercials provide those potential candidates without a strong
financial backing the opportunity to voice their message to the people. Whereas
in states like New York and California those candidates would have been priced
out of the election before it even began.
Had the 2016 election cycle begun in New York, Hillary Clinton,
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would have had an unmistakable advantage against their
opponents. Possessing large campaign war chests, these candidates would have
been able to corner the media market and sideline their opponents early in the
process. The high cost for media advertising might have dissuaded candidates
with less financial backing from even entering the race. Doctor Ben Carson, and
former Governors Martin O’Malley and John Kasich may never have thrown their
hat into the ring.
In addition, Iowa and New Hampshire’s small population give
grassroots campaigns the opportunity to be successful. A smaller population
mutes many of the advantages a well-funded established candidate may have over
a grassroots candidate. Grassroots rely
heavily on personal interaction with voters. A smaller general population means
that candidates have to convince a smaller plurality of the population to vote
for them. If a candidate were only physically able to reach 100,000 voters in a
state with 19 million people that candidate would make only a small dent in the
overall election results. However, in a state with a population of just over 3
million, those 100,000 interactions may propel the candidate to a strong
finish.
Although Iowa and New Hampshire’s ethnic demographics may not be
representative of the rest of the country, their political demographics are
more reflective. Iowa and New Hampshire are not the only states with small
populations and relatively cheap media markets, but their status as swing
states ensures that their caucus and primaries will serve as an adequate litmus
test for the politicos in both parties.
States with small populations tend to be more politically polarized
than others. States like Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming are overwhelmingly
conservative and are deeply loyal to Republican candidates. Were any of the
three aforementioned states chosen to replace Iowa as the first state to vote
for a Democratic nominee the results would most likely be ignored as irrelevant
by the larger liberal base. By contrast Iowa and New Hampshire’s almost even split
of registered Democrats and Republicans means that the electoral contests in
both states will be seen by out of state voters as a legitimate indicator of
their party’s preference for the nomination.
While citizens of the other forty-eight states may resent Iowa and
New Hampshire’s electoral power as early voting states, it should be noted that
these two states provide a more egalitarian environment with enough of a
representative sample vote for both parties than any of their other peers could
in the selection of Presidential candidates
