Comments on: Voters Don’t Favor Iowa, New Hampshire Influence http://donklephant.com/2008/01/03/voters-dont-favor-iowa-new-hampshire-influence/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Elisabetta http://donklephant.com/2008/01/03/voters-dont-favor-iowa-new-hampshire-influence/comment-page-1/#comment-387698 Elisabetta Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:03:50 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2008/01/03/voters-dont-favor-iowa-new-hampshire-influence/#comment-387698 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? 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?

]]> By: Tony http://donklephant.com/2008/01/03/voters-dont-favor-iowa-new-hampshire-influence/comment-page-1/#comment-387685 Tony Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:35:42 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2008/01/03/voters-dont-favor-iowa-new-hampshire-influence/#comment-387685 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. 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.

]]>