The current system of Iowa and New Hampshire holding the first presidential contests raises concerns about fairness, diversity, and political representation. Both states have populations that are not representative of the country as a whole, particularly in terms of race. This is problematic because the presidency is a national office that affects everyone, but the choices made by voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have a disproportionate impact on the race due to the media coverage and political momentum they provide. Candidates prioritize campaigning in these states, leaving other states without a voice in the process.
Furthermore, the current system of staggered primaries is unfair to states that vote later in the process. By the time the primaries are all but wrapped up in April, many states have not yet had the opportunity to vote. In the 2020 Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign before 26 states and territories had even held their contests. This means that voters in later-voting states may not have the same slate of candidates to choose from as voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, limiting their options and potentially influencing the outcome.
There are alternatives to the current system. One option is to have more diverse states go first on the primary calendar. Frontloading bigger states like California, Illinois, or Texas would bring a broader swath of voters into the mix, but it would also make person-to-person campaigning more difficult. Another option is to have a single primary election day for all states, similar to how other elections are conducted in the country. This would ensure that all states have an equal voice in the process, but it may not be favored by smaller states that currently have the opportunity to shine individually.
Overall, the current system of Iowa and New Hampshire going first in the presidential contests raises concerns about fairness, diversity, and political representation. Alternatives such as frontloading bigger states or having a single primary election day could address these concerns, but they also come with their own challenges and potential drawbacks. Ultimately, the cost of disenfranchising voters in later-voting states may not be worth the benefits provided by the current system.
