![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
primary problems(aka I really need a political icon)
So, just to get this out of the way for the poly folks, this is not about relationships, it's about politics and the complications of moving primaries.
One question I have heard over and over in the argument over states moving their primaries earlier and earlier is "Why do Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada have such power over the primary season?" Here's the answer:
Let's first look at these four states and think about the regional realities of the political process. In many ways, the US is divided into four regions by political people, the Northeast, the South, the Midwest and the West. It is not a coincidence that these four states are from these four regions. The primaries/caucuses of these states are thus seen as a way of testing candidates regionally. How a candidate does in South Carolina determines how they will do in the South, by the estimation of the U.S. political machine. So, in the first place, the parties feel they need tests in each of the four primary political regions of the US, so they put those first so that later groups of primary voters can see the way in which a candidate will play regionally when making their decisions.
So, why Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada? Because they have a strong combination of media economy, political moderation and regional representativity. By combining these things, candidates who may not have a lot of money can still compete without
Iowa: out of all the Midwestern States, Iowa is the smallest and has it's largest media outlet and only major city, Des Moines, at the center of the state. It is easy to get around and thus easy to campaign in. Compare this to say Missouri, also somewhat smaller, but with two major metropolitan areas, or North Dakota(or Dakota in the future), small in population but ridiculously vast, making travel across the state difficult, especially in the winter.
New Hampshire: twice the population density of Vermont, more of a rural-urban split than Rhode Island, New Hampshire is a good political balance point for the mostly blue Northeast, skewing conservative enough for the Republicans, but not so far that Democrats would ignore it(imagine if Massachusetts or Utah was an early primary). Once again easy travel, once again easy media coverage.
South Carolina: 2/3 the size of Mississippi, the only state in the Southern region with a significantly smaller population(not counting Arkansas, ruled out because it is less regionally representative and too close to Iowa), South Carolina also has it's biggest city right in the center of the state, making media coverage of the state fairly easy. Besides, history has proven that where South Carolina leads, the south follows.
Nevada: Nevada is interesting mainly based on population density. Nevada has its populations primarily concentrated in two main areas, Las Vegas and Reno/Carson City, thus simplifying media saturation. While Las Vegas is not the state with the smallest population in the area, it is the state that combines small population, major cities and moderate politics best. Situated politically and geographically between California and Utah, Nevada embodies neither extreme.
What does this mean overall? It means that these states are cheapest to run in. If you want to properly sample the potential candidates without relying on millionaire candidates or bankrupting the political parties, then having primaries where the most candidates can afford to run while still maintaining regional representation means that candidates have to raise less money during the early phases of the primary season which reduces donor fatigue later in the election year. Plus, it allows a wider spread of candidates which theoretically allows more vetting of ideas early on to determine overall relevance. So next time this comes up and you find yourself asking, why these states? Because they're cheap states to run in and we would never have a candidate who wasn't a multimillionaire without them.
One question I have heard over and over in the argument over states moving their primaries earlier and earlier is "Why do Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada have such power over the primary season?" Here's the answer:
Let's first look at these four states and think about the regional realities of the political process. In many ways, the US is divided into four regions by political people, the Northeast, the South, the Midwest and the West. It is not a coincidence that these four states are from these four regions. The primaries/caucuses of these states are thus seen as a way of testing candidates regionally. How a candidate does in South Carolina determines how they will do in the South, by the estimation of the U.S. political machine. So, in the first place, the parties feel they need tests in each of the four primary political regions of the US, so they put those first so that later groups of primary voters can see the way in which a candidate will play regionally when making their decisions.
So, why Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada? Because they have a strong combination of media economy, political moderation and regional representativity. By combining these things, candidates who may not have a lot of money can still compete without
Iowa: out of all the Midwestern States, Iowa is the smallest and has it's largest media outlet and only major city, Des Moines, at the center of the state. It is easy to get around and thus easy to campaign in. Compare this to say Missouri, also somewhat smaller, but with two major metropolitan areas, or North Dakota(or Dakota in the future), small in population but ridiculously vast, making travel across the state difficult, especially in the winter.
New Hampshire: twice the population density of Vermont, more of a rural-urban split than Rhode Island, New Hampshire is a good political balance point for the mostly blue Northeast, skewing conservative enough for the Republicans, but not so far that Democrats would ignore it(imagine if Massachusetts or Utah was an early primary). Once again easy travel, once again easy media coverage.
South Carolina: 2/3 the size of Mississippi, the only state in the Southern region with a significantly smaller population(not counting Arkansas, ruled out because it is less regionally representative and too close to Iowa), South Carolina also has it's biggest city right in the center of the state, making media coverage of the state fairly easy. Besides, history has proven that where South Carolina leads, the south follows.
Nevada: Nevada is interesting mainly based on population density. Nevada has its populations primarily concentrated in two main areas, Las Vegas and Reno/Carson City, thus simplifying media saturation. While Las Vegas is not the state with the smallest population in the area, it is the state that combines small population, major cities and moderate politics best. Situated politically and geographically between California and Utah, Nevada embodies neither extreme.
What does this mean overall? It means that these states are cheapest to run in. If you want to properly sample the potential candidates without relying on millionaire candidates or bankrupting the political parties, then having primaries where the most candidates can afford to run while still maintaining regional representation means that candidates have to raise less money during the early phases of the primary season which reduces donor fatigue later in the election year. Plus, it allows a wider spread of candidates which theoretically allows more vetting of ideas early on to determine overall relevance. So next time this comes up and you find yourself asking, why these states? Because they're cheap states to run in and we would never have a candidate who wasn't a multimillionaire without them.