Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | January 4th 2008 11:20 AM | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Should a rural, sparsely populated and predominantly white conservative state be the initial battleground for presidential nominations?

Well, someone has to go first but Steven S. Smith, the Kate M. Gregg Professor of Social Sciences Washington University in St. Louis, says it's time for Iowa to just go.

Smith says he has nothing against Iowa or New Hampshire, but he has serious misgivings about their special role as the first in the nation to select nominees. Iowa, he says, is far from representative of the nation — its population is too rural and too white to play such a critical role in choosing the nominee.



"It's a lousy way to elect a president," Smith says. "Is it reasonable to allow states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such a disproportionate impact on the presidential race?"

In the past, says Smith, it was argued that what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire didn't matter too much because only the weakest of candidates would be eliminated. The long nomination process was designed to allow voters to learn enough about the surviving candidates to gradually winnow the field in time for the November general elections.

What's changed now, says Smith, is that major parties have been unable to hold off a stampede of other states vying to push up the dates of their primaries and caucuses. Both parties tried to limit front-loading of the process by setting limits on when states could hold caucuses or primaries, and then granting exemptions for states like Iowa and New Hampshire, but most states have pushed their primaries up to or beyond those limits.

"That's why so many states have moved their primaries up to Feb. 5 — the earliest date allowed by the parties," Smith explains. "As a result, more than half the state delegates will already be assigned to a nominee by sometime late in the evening of Feb. 5."

Smith notes that the current nomination process is a creature of reforms sparked by Democratic Party concerns over the way Hubert Humphrey won the election in 1968. The McGovern Commission put rules in place before the 1972 elections to ensure that state delegates would be assigned in away that was proportional to the candidates' support in the state.

"Iowa's special role as the first state to cast votes in the nomination process is a phenomenon of relatively recent vintage," suggests Smith. "They chose to move their caucus date up so they would be ahead of New Hampshire and gain more attention and more leverage in the election. It's difficult to say whether that tradition will be preserved in 2012."

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.