Voters Don’t Favor Iowa, New Hampshire Influence
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Elections, Iowa, New Hampshire, Polls, RaceI wonder what they’d say if you asked them about their own state?
According to national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two nominations.“They have way too much — WAY too much — say,” said Kevin Thomas of Tacoma, Wash. “California’s a big state and they don’t have any say, and Iowa’s not even half the size of California. It really makes me as a voter wonder what’s going on.”
Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the current system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.
Umm, paging all politicians…potential populist issue staright ahead…
So yes, I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s voicing concern about this remarkably undemocratic fixed system. We need some sort of random lottery that picks sections of the country so candidates can focus on a few states at a time. That would help America pick the nominee instead of less than 1% of likely voters.
And lest we forget the most important reason why we need to change states that represent the true diversity of our nation…
Iowa — population 3 million — is 95 percent white; New Hampshire — population 1.3 million — is 96 percent white.
Just in case you’re wondering, white non-hispanics make up approximately 66% of the population.
Yep, it’s time for a change of venue…
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 3rd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Elections, Iowa, New Hampshire, Polls, Race. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 am
I agree and disagree both at the same time. While it’s unfair to give Iowa and New Hampshire the power alone to nominate the presidential candidates, I think that having a few smaller states going first is a very good thing in the long run. It gives the lesser-known and lesser-funded politicians a chance and it brings politics to a local level. Also, I think that this process actually prevents disastrous candidates from becoming the nominees. If Hillary loses tonight, Democrats should be thanking Iowa for hurting her campaign… since half the country has already said they won’t vote for her I don’t see why nominating her makes sense.
Also, winning Iowa and/or New Hampshire is no guarantee that one will receive the nomination. Just ask Bob Dole (1988), Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Edmund Muskie, George Bush Sr (1980), Dick Gephardt, Henry Cabot Lodge, Estes Kefauver or Lyndon Johnson (1968).
New Hampshirites are crazy and will likely secede from the Union if their primary is not first. Probably the best way to make this fair(er) would be to have Iowa vote first, then New Hampshire and Nevada vote the day after (NH would then still be the first primary)…. Then the very next day you have Washington, Minnesota, Michigan and South Carolina vote. One week after this, you have a Super Duper Tuesday primary where the rest of the nation votes.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
By allowing one person/one vote, people in states with greater urban areas would have a bigger say than those in rural areas. How fair is that?