Why iowa first

And while the national party can encourage these decision-makers to schedule their contests on certain dates, it cannot unilaterally impose its will on the primary calendar. Moreover, because Republicans seem intent on keeping the two states in prime position for the campaign, it might be even more difficult for Democrats to make any changes.

Switching from a caucus to a primary, as the whole world demanded of Iowa Democrats after the debacle, is particularly tricky. Caucuses are party-controlled and party-funded events. Thus, primaries require state legislative authorization and appropriations, and almost invariably, coordinated timing so that there is only one primary day. There were signs early this year that Nevada Democrats and Republicans might come together on a power move to switch their caucuses to primaries and demand first-in-the-nation position.

But the recent shake-up in the leadership of the Nevada Democratic Party has made the internal and external coordination necessary to pull that off problematic. But Harrison may have bigger fish to fry with Democrats focused on the midterms, and the experience showed that his state could have a decisive influence on the nomination despite going fourth.

If he really does intend to run for reelection, he might not want to rock boats by changing the nominating process or calendar. For starters, mandatory proportional representation for candidates replaced the winner-takes-all option.

That may have been more fair. Equally important, it gave the press the kind of numbers it needs to call a horse race. In addition, the reforms dictated that the caucuses be held very early. District conventions were held separately from the state convention, adding another step to the process. And the party assured that what happened at the grassroots level, from delegate selection to the party platform, made it to the next level: that is, from precinct caucus to county, district, and state conventions.

That meant time was needed for meetings and sending masses of printed material to thousands of people involved in the process. Consequently, the caucuses had to be moved back earlier and earlier. Larsen : "We knew that we were going to be first or one of the first after we thought about it. As I always say, we had a slow mimeograph machine, but we weren't stupid. We knew we were going to be early in the process.

We thought that was all right, but when the press, the national press showed up, we were totally amazed. By , it wasn't just Democrats. Close Local your local region National. Search Submit search Quick Search. Comments Close comments menu. Video link. Close X. Click to scroll back to top of the page Back to top. By Hannah Jackson Global News. Posted February 3, pm. Updated February 3, pm. Election: Primaries and caucuses, explained.

So a system like that would naturally favor the richest candidates and that seems like a bad idea. But if you do that, then everything is basically over and the smaller states that follow would be effectively disenfranchised.

I really do think a big benefit of starting with small states is that any candidate can afford to campaign there. You can go to Iowa and drive a bus around the state and engage in old-school retail politics — attending town halls and rallies, for instance.

And you have a decent chance of interacting with real people. This kind of engagement is important and worth preserving, because the alternative is just blanket national TV campaigns and ad blitzes. Iowa and New Hampshire have fought hard to keep their first-in-the-nation status. Do you see any chance that they lose it anytime soon? The system may already be in transition, and the parties — at the state and national level — may not be able to control it.

Right now we have Tom Steyer investing heavily in the four early states and also in a broad national ad campaign. If any of those strategies work, it could change things. The cycle is going to be fascinating for all of these reasons. We might see a new pathway to victory forged, which could force the parties to adjust. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all.

Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.