COMMENTARY | Every presidential election is the same as the previous election in one respect: the order of the primary states. First, the candidates spend up to several months living in Iowa courting individual voters. Some candidates prefer to skip Iowa. In this case, the candidates would camp out in New Hampshire. The last candidate to skip those states almost entirely was former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani decided to focus on Florida. By the time the campaign moved to Florida the race was nearly over for Giuliani. Is the nation destined to have Iowa and New Hampshire select our presidents for the rest of time?
I believe that the order in which the states hold primaries for the presidential election should be changed. Perhaps there could be a rotation of states rather than always having Iowa and New Hampshire begin the process. It would be nice for states that are more reflective of the Republican electorate to be the states that begin the process. Iowa and New Hampshire are both battleground states that have voted for Republicans and Democrats in the last three cycles. Imagine if the first two primary states were South Carolina and Montana. I think that would definitely bring different types of candidates to the fore.
As far as the time frame for the nomination process is concerned, I believe no changes are necessary. This year the schedule began in January and ends with Utah’s primary at the end of June. In my opinion, a lengthy primary campaign is essential to properly evaluate and then winnow the field. What I do not want to happen is for the nomination to be decided during one cold week in January or February when 33 states vote. Then everyone is left in waiting mode until the fall campaign begins in earnest. Furthermore, selecting our nominee early would be of no benefit to conservative candidates. Republicans would inevitably be stuck with a “mushy moderate” every election cycle. Unfortunately this is exactly what the establishment fervently desires and more often than not achieves. Preventing the establishment from selecting the Republican nominee is, for me, the main impetus for changing the primary process.
Regrettably, the primary process is not likely to undergo substantial changes in the near term. Iowa and New Hampshire understandably want to maintain the status quo. In their favor, both states are relatively small in both population and landmass. These facts make them ideal for retail politics. Both states also have a lengthy history of beginning the process. I can only wish that they were more reflective of the Republican primary electorate. That would be change indeed.