Doorbells have been torn off the wall, leaving frayed wires swaying in the wind. People greet you cheerfully, and then their hospitality turns to hostility. Three cars sit in the driveway, and yet no one opens the door.
These are scenes from America’s most pivotal political state.
For almost a century, Iowa and New Hampshire have held the first primaries in presidential election cycles. After years of being the targets of endless campaigning and canvassing, however, the citizens of these states are tired of it. In fact, some of them are paradoxically even less involved in politics than their late-primary counterparts. Maybe it’s time to give other states a turn.
The New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucus are guaranteed by state law to be first in the nation. As a result, the two states are always a huge center of attention for presidential campaigns. This focus, however, drastically aides some candidates while harming others.
It is well known that New Hampshire voters consistently vote on candidate’s economic policies and Iowans generally vote on social issues (leading to previous victories of right-wing Christian conservatives, such as Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee). As a result of the importance of the primaries, candidates have to bend over backwards to make themselves look more appealing to voters based on those criteria, knowing the importance of gaining early momentum.
Candidates spent a disproportionate amount of time in the two states, trying to make their presence felt. As one New Hampshire Republican put it, “you’re walking down the street, you’ll have a candidate come up to you and offer to carry your groceries.” The issue is that those states don’t necessarily want the attention. While there is a certain level of pride that some residents take in it, others are actually turned off of politics by the huge pressure that is placed on their states.
While canvassing in Iowa for a certain Democratic Socialist, I was struck by the lack of hospitality we were met with. People who were obviously home (and could be seen through windows) didn’t come to the door. One lady opened the door, looking bright and energetic, saw our stickers and clipboard, let out a hugely exaggerated cough, complained about a nagging cold and closed the door before we could speak. One family even sent their 6-year-old boy to the door, and he yelled, “Not interested!” and slammed it shut.
From an outsider’s perspective, these people were just mean. Observing it more broadly, however, shows that these are citizens tired of being bombarded with surveys and questions and campaigning. Many people, when questioned, said they weren’t planning on voting at all. They can’t be blamed for being disenchanted with the political system.
Giving other states a chance would do wonders for citizens and candidates alike. Instead of molding their stances and policies in order to appease only certain types of people, presidential hopefuls would have to make sure they appeal to a larger chunk of the population.
In states like Wisconsin (or my home state of Maryland), there is a low voter turnout; by that point, the winning candidate is already well on his way to victory. People feel like they can’t even make a difference. As a result, 2012 saw an only 17.3 percent voter turnout in primaries.
Hosting a nationwide primary, similar to the general election, would bring a larger voter turnout and wouldn’t put more emphasis on any one state. In the current system, candidates who are wildly popular nationwide are put at a huge disadvantage when they lose in an early state, and supporters don’t even show up in later states where the candidates are most popular. If the vote happened all on one day and was based on nationwide consensus rather than momentum gained in specific states, there would be a higher turnout and a more equitable process of selecting a winner.
While respecting the history and laws of Iowa and New Hampshire is important, reviving the political process and reinvigorating voters nationwide would make for a fairer election and would give the exhausted voters of the Hawkeye and Granite States a much-needed rest. Doing so would be a win-win for all.
Sebastian van Bastelaer is a sophomore majoring in environmental studies and history. Do you agree with his views on moving the primary elecion? Send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
