Of the people, by the people, for the people, but only after consulting with the Iowa people.
That famous Lincolnian slogan for democracy should be done away with. This new version reflects our modern presidential elections, where a primary system makes the voting rights of a handful of all-important states carry more weight than the rest.
Before writing off my complaints as typical of an angry non-citizen in California ““ the state that is proven irrelevant in presidential politics every four years ““ consider a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Brown University researchers Brian Knight and Nathan Schiff have found that voters in early primary states have up to 20 times the influence of voters in later states in the selection of candidates.
A New Hampshire voter not only has more influence in determining the victor within the smaller population of his state, he also gains a greater influence over the decisions of all remaining primaries.
New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other states that break the agreement of Feb. 5 as the first primary date, claim their special honor by giving up a few delegates for their party convention.
The rest of us are left watching the action unfold on the TV screen, mesmerized by the little red and blue graphics of live democratic action.
In his report, Schiff explains, “Our research suggests that voters in states that vote toward the end of the primary season place more weight on returns from the earliest states than on the states voting right before their own.”.
And so the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary have come and gone in the past week without any consultation from the other 48 states, and so have the presidential candidacies of Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and that crazy guy Mike Gravel ““ even if nobody bothered to tell him.
In fact, for all the pompous rhetoric about equal treatment and our “manifest” responsibility to spread democracy across the globe, our own brand of electoral policy comes up short in giving all citizens an equal say.
Knight and Schiff used a statistical model that suggests that if the order of the primaries had been different in 2004, John Edwards would have been the Democratic candidate.
Victories for John Kerry in Iowa and New Hampshire created a snowball effect that led to his nomination.
While split results have left the current races undecided, they have still managed to make an impact in the eyes of the voters. Mitt Romney’s “two silver medals” spin will be hard to believe.
For now, Iowa and New Hampshire have set the tone, but many disagree that they should.
The governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter, recently told the Columbus Dispatch that the Iowa caucus “makes no sense” and called it “hugely undemocratic”.
Caucus apologists claim that the caucus is a true representation of democracy, where the public forum and face-to-face interactions determine the winner.
But Knight denies that the positioning of the primaries is aligned with democratic ideals: “Evidence that early voters have a disproportionate influence over the selection of candidates violates “˜one person, one vote’ ““ a democratic ideal on which our nation is based.”
He also adds that the early states are “not exactly representative of the nation in terms of diversity.”
Surely, Knight does not to mean to imply that the racial composition of Iowa will result in the steadfast delivery of white supremacists to Capitol Hill (though that may still apply to the state of West Virginia and its proud son Robert C. Byrd, former Ku Klux Klan leader and current president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate for the Democratic Party).
Nonetheless, voters have different experiences, often grounded or shaped by their racial and ethnic identities. These experiences lead to a variety of outlooks on the roles and priorities that our government should consider, if not adopt. They also offer the solutions to the problems facing our country.
It is safe to assume that the interests of the farming industry and of European Americans will continue to be overrepresented as long as Iowa and New Hampshire maintain their current tone-setting status.
Ultimately, the worst aspects of this seemingly everlasting election system are not that they undermine equality among citizens or that they alienate the voices of racial minorities.
The worst thing is that it defeats the purpose of why we even go out there and vote: government by the people. Because the election circus gives us 20 months of political entertainment, much needed policy changes are thrown aside.
Were you hoping 2008 would bring health care reform, solutions in Iraq, or changes in immigration?
Tough luck, buddy.
This year, all we’ll do is watch the politicians dance to the tune set by Iowa and New Hampshire.
Tell Ramos who you are voting for at mramos@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.