Whose idea was it to let Iowa go first? Probably the same person who is letting New Hampshire go second.
For those of you with your nose already in the books-the Democratic primaries started this week. For those of you with your nose already in a bar-that is when they vote on who gets to run against George W. Bush. So back to the question-why Iowa?
Please do not think that I have something against Iowa or Iowans. Iowa comprises a part of the beloved Midwest and Corn Belt where I grew up. Every state wants to be known for something, so why not let Iowa vote first?
The problem is that Iowa only has 1.3 percent of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. For non-political science majors, delegates to a convention are the people who actually vote for the candidates. The primary election just tells them for whom to vote.
Next week, New Hampshire gets to vote. They have less than half the delegates that Iowa does!
The Democratic Party has evidently determined that Iowa is the braintrust of the United States. They are apparently so good at picking politicians that the Democrats want them to make some decisions that will affect who stays in the race and who quits.
I guess that means Iowans were not big fans of Dick Gephardt, who has now thrown in the towel after coming in fourth. The ironic part is that Gephardt’s home state of Missouri has more delegates than Iowa and New Hampshire combined. I guess he figures that Iowans know more about who is fit to be president than Missourians.
Anybody from Iowa heading to Las Vegas soon better pretend they are from Nebraska. Bookies in Las Vegas had 12-1 odds on Gephardt, making him third in line. John Edwards, who came in second in Iowa, was a 40-1 long shot.
Vegas had the best odds, 4-1, on Howard Dean. He came in third in Iowa and now he thinks he is an underdog in New Hampshire. Then again, so do most of the candidates, except for Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman.
Clark has 15-1 odds, though, putting him in third with the Sin City oddsmakers now that Gephardt has dropped out.
I still have not figured out why Iowa and New Hampshire are first. I know other states have tried to move their primary forward, but the Democratic Party rules say that Iowa is first and New Hampshire second.
It would make more sense to pick a big state with a lot of votes. That way you could weed out many candidates. That is a little less dramatic, I guess.
Now that the news has turned into Survivor Primaries, the Democrats are getting almost as much air time as the “CSI” shows.
There are a number of ways that primaries could be changed from the “Iowa goes first method.”
Pick a big state like California, with 370 delegates, or New York, with 236 delegates, to go first. That could shake things up.
Voters there are also rather diverse, which might give some minority candidates a better chance.
Maybe several states should vote first and all on the same day. I suggest the original 13 states or that it rotate each election to a different set of states.
Maybe Mississippi could become the place where candidates have to learn to
“outwit-outplay-outlast” each other.
John Summerlot is a graduate student in counseling education. He can be reached at [email protected].