The old-fashioned way
Taking account of everything contributed after my first thoughts from here and having spent a fabulous day in the lovely town of , (south of Des Moines by about 90 miles), I have a proposal: that every state in the Union share the honour of kicking off presidential elections, thus getting their moment in the sun every 200 years.
This is cumbersome, I know, but might address the fairness issues. What it would surely be a mistake to do is have some kind of national primary early on that keeps the candidates away from individual voters. Sure, all the voters I met today in Corning were greying and white (like me) but boy, were they involved; most had met candidates and several had still not made up their minds about whom to support.
Typical of them were Richard and Marilyn Shellenberg, who are going to have 20 people round for their Democratic on 3 January: all of them are enthused and keen. Incidentally, I pick up a HUGE dislike of robotic campaigning, to the extent that you have to wonder whether some candidates are impersonating others to do them down.
America is at its strongest when it is viewed from the bottom up. Corning is full of decent people trying to do a serious job selecting the next president. The candidates they like best tend to be those who have taken the trouble to speak seriously to them, not recorded down a phone, but face to face, the old-fashioned way.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
If there's 50 states in the union then isn't it every 50 years?
Like , do you mean Iowa one year then Nebraska the next then New York after that... etc etc...?
Can somebody help me please? I'm off to Nick Bryant's blog. He's got a picture of Kennedy on his.
50 states x Election every 4 years = 200 years before everyone has had a go.
hmmm...got a point there #1...or have we both drunk too much...then again, perhaps that's Justin..after too many political debates, time to hit the bottle to get more clarity?
If there's 50 states in the union then isn't it every 50 years?
Duh. Presidential elections occur every four years. 4 x 50 = 200.
Justin you know this would never happen. New Hampshire and Iowa aren't going to give up their supreme positions without a fight and even if they were forced to back down, and it was agreed there should be a rotation system, there'd be at least fifty years of floor-fighting and wrangling before they could settle on an order. If they could do it all.
Of course the selection of the nominees should be more democratic and representative but making things more democratic is not really what American politicians do, is it?
Remember Newt (such an appropriate name) Gingrich's re-drawing of congressional districts to secure Republican seats?
And how long has D.C. been battling for genuine representation in Congress? Only if Utah gets another seat and even then the GOP aren't too keen. 600,000 people without a say in the running of the federal government is pretty shameful.
(Sorry for going off on one there but as a Brit that lived in the District for a while this issue is a particular goat-getter of mine.)
prez elections are every 4 years so the 200 figure is correct. The thought of having annual elections is too horrible to contemplate :)
Presidential elections occur every 4 years in the United States, so that's a 200 year cycle.
Candidates spend vast amounts of money on campaign managers and consultants.
Given, as you quite rightly point out, that Iowa is all about the voters' personal interaction with the candidates, it amazes me that any of these consultants thinks that something as annoying and impersonal as a "robo call" is going to work to their candidate's advantage.
On the other hand, most of these advisors are, it seems, riding the same inside-the-beltway gravy train without an original thought between them so perhaps I should be less surprised.
That would be ideal but people in Iowa and New Hampshire have a huge sense of entitlement in this regard (being first is good both for local pride and the local economy) and are extremely hypersensitive to any hint of their privileged position being threatened.
Glad you are enjoying your visit to Cornbread Iowa. And there is no apology necessary as this is not only part of the breadbasket of the United States it is also right smack in the middle of America's heartland where the core of American values comes from. You will learn far more About America and Americans from these people than you will talking to anyone in Washington DC, New York City, or Los Angeles.
Think of how much energy it takes to make life bearable let alone comfortable keeping these people warm in winter, cool in summer, and for them to travel from place to place going about their lives and businesses. Then go back and pay them a visit in August when "the corn is as high as a elephant's eye" and drive down through Nebraska and Kansas to "Oklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plain, and the waving wheat can sure smell sweet when the wind comes right behind the rain." Whenever the subject of cutbacks of CO2 emissions comes up, keep in mind that the energy it takes to sow, tend, harvest, process, and ship these and other grain staples of the world like soy and rice may be among the products which have to go. Not only do Americans depend on this food for themselves and for animal feed but much of the entire world depends on the bounty of this land to survive as well. Europe and America may argue over whose bananas Europe will import at favorable prices but when there are famines and people are starving to death in remote places, the fields around you today often make the difference between life and death for many millions of them as millions of tons of this output is shipped to every corner of the globe. Shut this down and there will be dire consequences. You can get an inkling of what would happen by just noticing that when a small percentage of it is diverted to making an alcohol additive to gasoline to cut back on America's imported oil, the price of food around the world has shot up even though the US dollar remains weak. Ecologists and politicians had better give some thought to this before they go spouting off screaming about who should commit to what to reduce CO2 emissions. Far better for the world to do without so many pairs of cheaply made Chinese shoes. And those who are indifferent to America's security or actually want to see it harmed should also consider that any WMD attack on the US will shut off the outward flow instantly and completely as the ports will be put in lockdown mode, possibly forever.
We could do it in a rotating cycle. State A is first in year one, four years later A goes second and B goes first, in another four years A goes third, B goes second and C goes fourth, etc. Then each state would be first and get a lot of publicity, visits from candidates, and a chance to share and spotlight themselves for the nation. Plus since they'd slowly slide into the last position each state would remain relatively important for a long period of time.
This would of course require a long view, since most states would not reach the top spot for many decades after starting the cycle. We've never been very good at taking the long view, but something like this could really help to reinforce the unity between the states and encourage a long view as citizens planned for the lead position. It may even encourage more civil involvement, a person may well realize that he or she will be dead when the cycle reaches a specific state, and so choose to work hard to instill their values or cement their ideas in the next generation or two.
Better yet.....have all primaries, in all states, on the same day, and disallow influence peddling from one electorate to another.
Meet and greet the most phoney of all the political traits ever known to man yet still effective today.
People really are suckers for the personal touch.
The good thing about the New Hampshire-Iowa-South Carolina cycle is that they tend to have different attitudes towards national politics, and usually, a moderate candidate slips through. If you give the first primary to a state like Idaho, on one hand, or Vermont on the other, you would be likely to get a right-wing or left-wing nutter...remember, if Iowa or New Hampshire had their say, Pat Robertson and Howard Dean would have been their parties candidate in 92 and 04...
Actually, as a Coloradoan, I prefer seeing other states go first. I lived briefly in Iowa, so I like to know what they think. What could be better than having a little state like New Hampshire actually have some clout in the presidential decision-making process? Perhaps because there are 50 states, we almost never hear what's happening in any state except New York, Illinois, or California (and you thought our ignorance of the rest of the world was bad). I like having the focus put on smaller states like Iowa or New Hampshire.
Why not have a national primary? Better yet, skip the whole primary process all together as it only favors the 2 party system. Save time, save money and only have a national election.
I would prefer that all 50 states have their primary elections on the same day. All US Citizens should be able to choose who they want to be their party's nominee. I'm tired of being a second class citizen where I only get to vote on the candidtates who remain in the race after Karl Rove does his dirty tricks to influence elections.
All US Citizens should be first class citizens.
Do you think we Americans could stand the break in routine? ;)
Will,
Doh! Oh yeah of course! I don't know why I thought of 50 years. I must have been getting confused with the LibDem leadership elections. They elect someone every year. Thank you.
The reason Iowa and NH have jealously guarded there 'first-in-the-nation' primary status is because that's what makes them stand out. All states - like all people - in America are not created equal. The big states already have the most influence and attention; to be first for them is not such a big deal. They can wait a little bit to play kingmaker in the end. Iowa and NH would otherwise get lost in the shuffle. Unfortunately, the primary system is itself flawed as party hierarchs carefully control it. After the '72 election, the last approximately democratic Democratic Party convention in which McGovern won a populist Democratic nomination, the party changed the rules for nomination and created the so-lled 'superdelegates' to more tightly manage the nomination process. The republican process is even more closed to popular influence. These cauceses and primaries are mere window dressing. Only pre-vetted candidates even appear in them; and the all-important flow of campaign money from large donors and lobbies insures ideological conformity. Not to mention media publicity which serves to exclude outsiders and "rabble rousers". Stick around 'til November and see how many eligible voters actually bother to go to the polls to go through the motions in America's sham elections between virtually identical major parties and their interchangable pre-approved nominees.
I agree with you, Justin, that the Iowa caucuses are great in that the people that vote tend to make very informed decisions. The problem, however, is that so few Iowans (what was it last time around, 5%?) actually bother to attend their precinct meeting, stripping the process of almost all its legitimacy. What essentially happens is that 100,000-odd white, mostly rural, voters make a decision that strongly influences the choices that will be available to the rest of the country. I'm not saying multi-ethnic, urban, voters are any better, but surely nobody would want them and their agendas alone to determine the outcome of the primaries?!
As a naturalized Brit who has lived in Florida for 50 years, I am proud to say that but for illness I have never missed voting, be it in local, state, or national elections. However, I have always hoped that one day we would be able to vote just as you do in Britain, without all the campaigning, grabbing for campaign money, with its attendant risk of corruption and power brokering, and hype that is the American election process. We need a straight-up national election, with no time- and money-wasting primaries, just as you do across the "Pond". The distasteful fact is that it is usually the candidate who can raise the most money that gets the nod at the national conventions, which are, in themselves, theatrical productions in which a lot of people manage to look pretty foolish.
Now that I have discovered Justin's blog site I look forward to his observations as we grind forward to next November. I wonder who he would vote for if he was able to!
This is actually an interesting proposal, Justin. Compliments. Not all states have caucuses per se--California has a primary, for instance--but your general point still stands. It shouldn't be all that difficult to implement, either. And your idea might put an end to this recent attempt by states to push their caucus or primary dates forward. One thing standing in the way would be that all fifty state governments might have to agree to do this, and some states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire would have to amend their Constitutions.
On a side note, have you considered visiting or observing a Republican (or Green, Libertarian, etc.) group? So far, it seems that you spend a lot of time around Democrats. That might account for your somewhat skewed views on the nation: you're only getting the input of around one half of Americans.
I don't understand why these "elections" for a candiate are not held on one day. Surely this is far better than a peacemeal election where one candidate may have the upper hand on one day which luckily coincides with an election in a state that favours them. Whereas another candidate is eliminated, for the same but opposite reasons. Everyone has a good day and bad day...seems rather unfair to penalise a candidate and remove them from an election which is ostensibly a "reactionary" election rather than a full, fair and proper election. Everyone voting at the same time.
As for the cornbread of Iowa supplying the worlds food, rice??!! Hmmm, rice is a stable source of food for the whole asain region, some 50% of the worlds population. These countries have been producing their own rice for thousands of years.
The only breason why the "food basket" of the central planes of the US is growing rice, is for money.
US companies have genetically modified the rice and soy, for higher yields for growth in varying soil compositions in the US. But for higher yields and higher for profit not for an altruistic reason. The rice is not modified for growing in various parts of asia and sold as basic growing grain to asia, it is sold as refined rice, a finished product, by the US to asain countries, cheaply. So there is no benefit to the asian country, other than a cheaper alternative.
So asian countries now have a flood of cheap genetically modified rice, cheaper than home grown.
But i guess this is no different to a flood cheaply made chinese shoes!
Nick(4):
As for order, how about basing the ranking on the date of their admittance into the Union (so Delaware first and Hawaii last--Hawaii should have become a state before Alaska; just an opinion)? Agree that it would be extremely difficult to get this idea to pass, but on a hypothetical, theoretical level, it does seem to be a decent concept.
And the District of Columbia should not have a caucus/primary (of the opinion that it shouldn't even have an electoral vote). Washington, D.C. is not a state, and too many Americans seem to not quite realize what an American state is, especially after the formation of many other countries in the Americas and Australia forming their countries out of states. The states of the United States are not supposed to be just some subdivision of a country, as are prefectures and provinces and counties. In that state, nation, and country are used interchangeably in the vernacular (they each have their own, very distinct definition, but colloquially they are used synonymously), the United States of America could be called the United Nations of America or the United Countries of America. Actually, the proposal of the name 'United Nations' for the international organization was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt based on the United States. The Treaty of Paris resolving the Revolutionary War recognized thirteen, independent countries. And technically American states are supposed to be co-sovereign with the federal government, with the federal government sovereign in some areas (such as common defense and trade with states outside the Union) and the state governments sovereign in much of the rest. The ±«Óãtv's description of the United States being divided into federal, state, and local levels doesn't do justice to the states. 'Local levels,' counties, parishes, buroughs, etc. are centrally controlled by the state government. State governments are not controlled by the federal government.
Obviously, it isn't the case that the state governments are equal in power to the federal government today. Especially since the federal Constitution supercedes state laws. Something for EU citizens to consider: your would-be constitution would have clearly defined EU law as superceding the laws of the national governments. Such a rule can sooooo be taken advantage of.
I am from Texas, and I don't believe that anyone really cares what we think, let alone New Jersey or Montana. Iowa and New Hampshire do a good job on representing all sides. Besides, why do we want to break tradition?
And also consider all of the history books we would have to rewrite. This has always been a freebe on tests. :)
it is 50 * 8 = 400 years
Whoa, John Kecsmar, dial down the anti-Americanism to some semblance of rationality please!
You say America has harmed Asia with genetically engineered rice? When I was a child, 60 million peasants starved in China, mostly as a result of government policies, but partly because of archaic production methods. Mama routinely told us to finish our vegies because there were "starving children in India who would be lucky to have this food." AND THERE WERE. Today, India and many other Asian countries are net rice exporters precisely because of the US sponsored "Green Revolution" and improved grain stock. By the way, this was accomplished in th '70s with the old, slow, tedious selection techniques–we would have loved to do it with genetic engineering–and oh, yeah, an American invented that too! How soon we forget.
As a resident of Massachusetts I can't help but resent my neighbor's influence over the American electoral process. That said, there are reasons why these states are selected. If a candidate had to initially campaign in a state like Massachusetts, they would be required to raise far more money in order to campaign effectively than they would in a smaller state like Iowa or New Hampshire. First off, the Boston media market is FAR more expensive than say Des Moines. Secondly, the sheer volume of people makes it harder to engage in 'retail politics.'
These problems only become more pronounced in states like New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, California, Illinois etc.
A lot of people have toyed around with the concept of a rotating regional primary, where the country is broken down into regions and within each of those regions (say of 5 states each) the states rotate their position in the primary every four years.
Something does need to change however, its pretty ridiculous that a homogeneous and relatively unimportant state like Iowa gets to basically choose the leader of the free world...
#9 Mark said that if you go to Cornbread, Iowa, "You will learn far more about America and Americans from these people than you will talking to anyone in Washington DC, New York City, or Los Angeles."
Well it just so happens Mark that far more Americans actually LIVE in NYC, LA and DC than in Iowa.. So if you want to learn about Americans and their values, then go to where Americans actually live. I get tired of this "real Americans" rubbish that people from less populated states pull. Americans are "real" wherever they live and they live mostly in big cities and on the coasts. That is just a fact. And when you talk Americans and their values (which is a broad range of ideals) those are the people who make up the largest group, so why try to dismiss them?
BJ in #29 makes a valid point. But it also raises furtehr questions about the "unity" of the US. Each state has its own laws, often very different from another state. So in fact they are individual little countries. (Ive been to about 30 of the states so I can testify to this).
If one now compares this with Europe. The EU may have a "common" policy, but each country within the EU is, in general, autominoius. The UK differs from Framce as it does from Germany etc etc. Everyone understands that these are different countries, but happen to reside in the continent of Europe. Each country has its own laws even language.
Yet in the US, the language is the same all over. But still lots of individual "countries". So when it comes to an election suddendly these individual countries become one. If they are collectively one, in terms of a national election..why conduct an election over a period of nearly 2 years...sounds more mixed up then EU.
So if these individual countries vote for one perosn, then ergo there must be one nation. If there is one nation, there must be a "typical" person from that nation. As BJ in#29 states, why concentrate so much on a state so far away from the coast and has a very small population in comparison to the rest. These by definition cannot be typical people and typical American values as they do not represent the majority!
Corning Iowa, not Cornbread Iowa!!! Slow down, posters. Breathe deeply, and shed the sanctimony. Shucks, I bet you can even read them internet tubes in places like Ames and Grinnel nowadays.