I'm a native Iowan, born and raised, and I've seen a lot of diaries lately about what's wrong with the current caucus set up and Iowa in particular. I hope I can be objective enough in the following discussion to show why Iowa and New Hampshire, or at least states like them, deserve to go first. I'll try to address some specific criticisms of Iowa and also explain why it is important for small states to go first. I'll use Iowa in my example, but the same logic could apply to other small states as well.
I'd like to start by addressing the two biggest criticisms of the caucuses and Iowa in general. The first is that we aren't representative of the nation as a whole. In other words, we're two white. So? No state is a perfect microcosm of the nation as a whole. There is no state that perfectly mirrors the mix of people that make up the country. Some come much closer than others, but there's no perfect state.
I also see a little bit of the liberal racism in this statement, the assumption that all people in a class think alike. That all the black voters will automatically line up behind the same candidate(and the assumption is that it is Obama) simply isn't true. There is no typical black voter, just as there is no typical white voter, or typical soccer mom voter or any of the rest of the neat little compartments we like to put people in. The assumption is that Iowa is made of up of redneck white boys and will all vote one way. Well that isn't true either. Right now we essentially have a tie between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. So much for the white boys of Iowa voting in a bloc.
Which actually leads into the second big complaint about Iowa, that the winner of the caucus is not always the winner of the nomination. So? I'll expand on this later, but the point isn't to select the person the first day. It's to gauge a general feeling for the candidates. As the process continues, candidates who continually poll low drop out. The goal is not to let the first caucus or primary pick the winner, the goal is to get a general sense of the candidates at the earliest stages so that the bigger states have seen them all. Besides, if there was one state or even one county that always predicted the winner, we could just let them decide and the rest of us wouldn't have to vote at all. There's a short sf story like that, where the computers calculate the one person who is the absolute perfect representative of the entire country for that year and that person decides who is president. Anyone remember who wrote it?
So why should Iowa (or other small states) go first in the caucus/primary process? Their biggest advantage is their small size. Advertising is incredibly cheap here in Iowa compared to the stereotypical New York or California market we're a huge bargain. That allows small candidates with lower funds to compete and get their message out to the voters in a way that simply wouldn't be possible in the larger markets.
While the goal of the process is to select the presidential candidate, the goal of each individual state caucus or primary should be to give as many people a chance to be heard as possible. The more ideas we have, the more discussion and the more talking we do, the better we all are. Sure, some of the candidates, Mike Gravel I'm looking at you, are not going to get the nomination and everyone knows it. But that doesn't mean they don't have some good ideas that the other candidates don't. By keeping the first caucuses small and cheap, they get their ideas out there and then at least voters can discuss the ideas and press the more probable candidates to adopt or not adopt those ideas.
And the candidates do get a chance to talk to the voters here. If they started in a large state or a whole section of the country, there'd be a lot less time for one-on-one talks with the candidates. Here, the candidates have the ability to sit down in a coffee shop with real people. You just wouldn't be able to do that in the bigger states. Between the costs of advertising and other media buys and the lack (or apparent lack) of more intimate settings, larger states don't appear to offer the ability to get to know the candidates as well as the small states.
Now implicit in this are my ideas about how the caucus/primary process should be handled. I think that the process should be as inclusive as possible and give as many people a chance to get their views heard as possible. Especially those on the outer fringes of the party. We all can take a guess as to the 3rd and 4th tier candidates on our side. But also take a look at the Republicans. Paul would never have had a chance in a big state. He didn't have the money until he was able to spread his message in a small state and get to know people first. The web was a big help for him of course, and that might transform the whole process in 4 years anyway. Guliani is relying on a big state plan. He said he's going to wait until Florida because it has so many electors. That is going to hurt him because he isn't getting out to people the way the other candidates are and he isn't getting his message out. Ok, so his message is 9/11, but still, you get the idea.
And now I have to brag about Iowa a little. We are one of the more educated states. We consistently rank high in education, http://www.morganquitno.com/... has us as the 9th rated state. We're above average in the NAEP statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/... We really do care about the process and try to get involved and take our status seriously.
I do think there is room for improvement in the process. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I hope I've given the Iowa and New Hampshire bashers some food for thought.