Antiquated Election Processes

There are certain things in life that we accept without challenge. Two of the most quoted ones are Death and Taxes! And there are probably several others. When it comes to presidential elections every four years, we can add that Iowa Caucasus and the New Hampshire primaries are the first two events in such election years. The two major political parties do not agree on many things these days but here they are in complete agreement: The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are the first two events every four years when the political event of electing the party’s nominees for President begins. Just to make it clear, there is no constitutional reason for this, there is no law that was voted on by Congress or signed by a President in the past to make it so, it is not a tradition that goes back for more than a century, No, it’s just the way it is and America and more importantly, its entire population has accepted this without question. This is in and of itself amazing to us here at this site. There are several reasons why we believe it to be so:

First, the two states have a combined population of less than five million people, amounting to only 1.6 percent of the country’s populace.

Second, these two states do not at all represent the demographics of America. For instance, the combined percentage of black persons is 1.8 percent (2.3 % in Iowa and 1% in New Hampshire), this is well below the national percentage of almost 13 percent. What is baffling here is that this is apparently acceptable by the African-American civil rights leaders, the NAACP and especially the outspoken Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They show up everywhere when they think a black person is wronged or treated unfairly by society, government, the criminal justice system or whatever. Is being under-represented at presidential primaries not an important issue for these leaders? The same argument could be made for the Hispanic/Latino population in these two states in that the average is 3.15 percent while the national average is nearly 15 percent.

Third, what is especially amazing is the weight placed upon winning these two primaries by the candidates. It is commonly accepted wisdom that whoever wins Iowa and New Hampshire takes tremendous momentum into the rest of the primaries and is the clear cut favorite to win the respective party nominations. Even winning just one of the states makes the candidate a frontrunner in polls. It is for this reason that all candidates spent incredible amount of time and money in these two states, they talk to voters at county fairs, in diners, on street corners and wherever else they can meet the residents in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Fourth, the election processes in both states are somewhat suspect: In Iowa, the Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party’s caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registrations at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. The Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who elect delegates to district and state conventions where the national convention delegates are selected. Are you confused by now? Nobody can blame you if you are. What is incredible is the perceived notion that this will give a winner momentum for the rest of the primary season. In difference to Iowa, the New Hampshire’s primary first in the nation status is enshrined in state law. While the two major parties wanted to hold the primaries on different (later than other states) dates, the New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner had the final say to the date of the primary and he was bound and determined to protect the state’s first in the nation status. The voting process is by secret ballot. However, according to the November 2006 voting lists, there are 256,000 Republicans, 222,000 Democrats and 373,000 undeclared voters. These ‘Undeclared voters’ can vote in either party’s primary. The procedure is simple. Upon entering the polling place, a voter declares for one of the parties and votes on that party’s ballot. After voting he or she can return to the undeclared status. This group represents about 44 percent of eligible voters in New Hampshire. This process of registering at the last second before voting is very suspect in that proof of resident status in New Hampshire is based on the statement of the person who comes into the polling place. Is that clear enough for you? If you have a relative in this state, visit this person on Election Day, walk into the polling place, tell them where you live (the address of your relative) and you can vote for any candidate.

It is truly mystifying to us here at ‘Consider Common Sense’ that America accepts this all as the start of the long process of electing the President of the United States. The Iowa caucuses are set for January 3, the New Hampshire primary is set for January 8 to be followed by Michigan on January 15, South Carolina primaries on January 19 (Republican) and 29 (Democrats) and then comes Super Tuesday, February 5. On this day, voters in 22 states will make their choices including in delegate rich states California, New Jersey and New York. The primary process will eventually end on June 3 when the final votes are cast in South Dakota.

Needless to say, the candidates will not have enough time to visit all states after Iowa and New Hampshire and so the voters in 98.5 percent of the country have to go by how the candidates fared in Iowa and New Hampshire. What nonsense this is! As if the people in California truly care or want to depend on what the voters in these two early states did and why the Iowan’s choice of candidate is a reliable measure for the people on the west coast to follow. While it is too late for this election cycle to change anything, we would think that serious people would want to change the process by considering and weighing alternative options by the time of the next presidential election in 2012.

This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.