The Journal

Issue date: 9/6/07 Section: Opinion and Editorial

The United States has effectively become a government ruled by a small group of people. Every four years, the country puts its fate in the hands of 2.5 percent of its population, allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to determine the course of elections by dwindling down the pool of presidential candidates. The 98.5 percent of Americans who aren't residents of either of these states have stood by idly for too long.

In five of the last seven presidential elections, Republicans and Democrats who won the New Hampshire primary went on to win their party's nomination. On the other hand, disappointing results in these states are hard for any campaign, even if the candidate has broad support in states with later primaries. As a result, some candidates choose not to see the entire primary circuit through and support another more successful candidate, as John Edwards did for John Kerry in 2004. This means voters in states with later primaries, such as Missouri, have considerably fewer choices than voters in Iowa or New Hampshire.

States with the earliest primaries essentially pick the candidates for the rest of us. No two states are entitled to this amount of influence over national elections - certainly not Iowa and New Hampshire, whose combined electoral votes come to 11, a trifling amount compared to the 538 total electoral votes or the 270 needed to win the presidency. Despite their small populations, Iowa and New Hampshire might have a legitimate claim that their influence over elections if they represented an accurate cross-section of the country, but this is simply not so. According to 2005 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 95.5 percent of New Hampshire's population is white, as is 93.9 percent of Iowa's. Nationally, 74.7 percent of the population is white.

But disproportionate as it is, one good thing can be said for the primary system as it exists today­ - it gives under-financed candidates a fighting chance at earning their party's nomination. With all the candidates crammed into two relatively small states at the same time, they're forced to win over votes with a little old-fashioned politicking - knocking on doors, shaking hands and kissing babies.

If the federal government takes the initiative to change the system, it needs to make sure not to throw the good out with the bad. The United States needs a system that is representative of its people, yet still allows a dark horse a chance to win. This means that a single nationwide primary election is out of the question. The amount of money needed to campaign in all 50 states would discourage the underdogs from entering the race, not to mention essentially put the candidate selection process in the hands of corporate interests.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools