It's that time again, where New Hampshire & Iowa do everything under the sun to keep their "First in the Nation" status when choosing Presidential candidates. Since there is no primary contest this time on the Democratic side, we're thankfully spared from much of the craziness & stupidity. But that doesn't mean we can't shake our heads and laugh as New Hampshire & all the other states resort to absurd options to be first in line to vote for Presidential nominees.
According to USA Today, the Secretary of State for New Hampshire has put out a statement (pdf) in which he warned, that if Nevada holds their caucuses on January 14th, 2012, it might mean holding New Hampshire's 2012 Presidential Primary on December 6th of this year. New Hampshire law mandates that their primary occur 7 days before "any similar election" in any other state.
New Hampshire can't hold it on January 7th, since that's the date of the Iowa Caucuses. And they don't want to do it on New Year's or at Christmas time.
However, this leads into the larger question that no political party will ever challenge: Why is it so damn important that New Hampshire & Iowa be first? Shouldn't some of the other 48 states get a chance to be "First in the Nation" every now & again?
Could New Hampshire residents be voting for a 2012 GOP presidential nominee ... in early December? New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner says "yes" in a memo that also puts pressure on Nevada to push back its GOP presidential caucuses from Jan. 14 to Jan. 17 or later.
If not, Gardner writes, "it leaves New Hampshire no choice but to consider December of this year." He says the Granite State's "realistic options" would be Dec. 6 or Dec. 13." Right now, the problem is the date of Nevada," Gardner writes. "We will respond as we need to in order to honor New Hampshire's tradition, and to keep our primary relevant."
And in that last sentence is the problem with all of this. There is really no good reason for either Iowa or New Hampshire to
ALWAYS go first except the tradition of it, and relying on "
well that's the way it's always been" for an argument usually doesn't cut it. And let's be honest, New Hampshire & Iowa aren't going to these lengths to "
honor a tradition." They're doing it to protect tourism & media dollars that come into their states every four years.
The usual defense of Iowa & New Hampshire's status of going first is that both states allow for better retail politics (i.e. candidates getting up close & personal with voters), and challengers with less funds can be competitive in both states' media markets. However, I've never gotten a really good answer as to why states like New Mexico, West Virginia, etc. wouldn't allow for exactly the same thing? Pray tell why two states that are older, whiter, and more rural than the country as a whole should have so much influence on the nominating process every Presidential election cycle?
The only reason they still get to go first is that no one in a position to do anything about it in either party has the guts to stick their neck out and change the process, because the people in a position to do something about it usually want to run for President one day themselves & don't want to screw up their chances if New Hampshire or Iowa are still "First in the Nation."