A Bipartisan Schedule for Presidential Primaries Biden wants to demote Iowa and New Hampshire, but why not let the closest states go first? By Michael Segal
Democrats have proposed to make the South Carolina primary the first contest in their presidential nomination process, supplanting Iowa and New Hampshire. The problem is that they plan to do so using racial criteria, to “ensure that voters of color have a voice in choosing our nominee much earlier in the process,” as President Biden put it in a letter to the Democratic National Committee last week: “You cannot be the Democratic nominee and win a general election unless you have overwhelming support from voters of color.”
Since that isn’t true of the Republicans, they’re unlikely to use the same criteria or the same schedule. This would be a logistical problem, especially in states that allow independent or crossover voting, where voters can choose on Election Day in which primary to cast a ballot.
Democrats have a point that the process could benefit from some updating, but how about using a rules-based approach? The first primary could go to the state with the closest race in the previous presidential election. In 2024 that would be Georgia, where Mr. Biden won by 0.2% in 2020. Next could be Arizona, where Mr. Biden won by 0.3%, or North Carolina, where Donald Trump won by 1.3%.
Letting these states go first would satisfy the concerns of Democrats but do so in a way that would be acceptable to Republicans as well, thereby keeping the contests on the same day for each state. (I live in Massachusetts, which hasn’t been close since 1984, so I don’t expect my state to get any advantage from this proposal.)
The primacy of New Hampshire and Iowa lasted for decades because it made sense. Both states were often competitive in presidential elections, so their nomination contests offered the promise of favoring candidates who would appeal to swing voters in the November election. Spending lots of money in such states also held the hope of a good payoff in the general election. But in 2020 New Hampshire was only 11th closest and Iowa 13th.
Mr. Biden argues that it is important to “review the calendar every four years.” The best way to do so is a rules-based process allowing for a bipartisan schedule. Such a reform would improve the degree to which presidential elections are tuned to current realities.
Dr. Segal is a neurologist and neuroscientist.
Comments are closed.
