A recent letter to the editor posed an excellent question to us political scientists. The real explanation for United States' nomination process is to give political scientists a season of excitement. Sports fans get March Madness, tech geeks get CES, and accountants get tax season? The complex primary process makes us giddy.
The primaries aren't a government function, but an independent construction by state parties. The GOP actually penalizes the states that have primaries before Feb. 5 by taking away half their delegates to the national nominating convention. New Hampshire however, has a state law that its primary must be held at least a week before any similar contests.
The main defense is that a nationwide nomination would restrict campaigning to mass media. It is admittedly an odd sort of privilege for the early states. There is nothing preventing any person in Iowa or New Hampshire from getting a couple moments of face time with each candidate. If they're dull or go batty it can hurt them. These are generally accepted as the first states because they're thought to be such a cross section of American demographics and ideology.
With the obvious momentum the primaries grant, they don't necessarily decide the primary. This year, for example, both parties are still very much in the air (glee). In any event, all the states participate and everyone's votes are equally inconsequential.
The U.S. isn't necessarily the most democratic in the world, but we usually prefer the moniker of the freest. Please, let's at least hold onto that.
By Shawn Curtis:
Nibley
The presidential primaries have little to do with whether the U.S. government is a democratic government. The primaries are held by organizations that sponsor individuals in their bid to run for president of the U.S. Those organizations hold a great deal of political power, but hold only as much governmental power as the citizens of a county, state or the nation give them via the election procedures at those levels.
In reality, the results of primaries in New Hampshire have no direct effect on who is ultimately elected president. However, they give a huge organization's support to that candidate which will allow them better clout.
As for the effect of Iowa and New Hampshire on those decisions, it has more to do with the social impact and media buzz that is created by candidates winning those areas. Once again, it is not a flaw inherent in parties' election procedures, but one that is created when undue media attention is given to those candidates, thereby increasing their momentum.
Lastly, as to who determines when those elections are held, it is the state committees for the respective parties. The national committees for each party actually pushed for those state committees to wait until a date referred to as Super Tuesday (when over a dozen other states hold their primaries) to hold elections. Since the state committees effectively refused, the national committees penalized the state committees by having the results of their elections hold less weight or even none at all.
Bryan Gividen:
Dale City, Va.