Letter to the Editor: Presidential Primary System Needs to Change

Posted

As has been true for generations, Iowa and New Hampshire yet again are leading the way in the presidential selection process. To say the least, this procedure grants too much power and influence to these two small states and should be modified.

New Hampshire, the 41st of the 50 states in population, has hosted the nation’s first presidential primary in every election since 1920.  And since 1952, when the Granite State required delegates chosen in its primary to be pledged to specific candidates, the influence of New Hampshire in the choice of our chief executive usually has been profound.

On March 11, 1952, Sen. Estes Kefauver stunned the nation by trouncing President Harry Truman in the New Hampshire primary, winning all 12 delegates to the national convention. Truman, his popularity besieged by the stalemate in the Korean War, reacted on March 29 by scrapping his undeclared candidacy and announcing his retirement from public life.

History repeated itself on March 12, 1968, when Sen. Eugene McCarthy, his campaign fueled by fervent opposition to the war in Vietnam, vastly exceeded expectations by nearly defeating President Lyndon Johnson in the Granite State.

In turn, this led to the fateful entry into the race of Sen. Robert Kennedy on March 16, and the withdrawal of Johnson on March 31. Thus, for the second time in 16 years, New Hampshire effectively had ousted an incumbent Democratic president.

And of the 17 Republican presidential nominees from 1952 through 2016, only three, Barry Goldwater in 1964, Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000, did not win the New Hampshire primary.  

Since 1972, Iowa, ranked 30th in population, has held the nation’s first presidential caucus, a more complex procedure that typically attracts fewer participants than a primary.

Still, the Hawkeye State gave critical boosts to Jimmy Carter in 1976, Barack Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

In fact, no candidate since 1972, whether Republican or Democratic, who has won in both Iowa and New Hampshire has been denied a nomination for the nation’s highest office.



In stark contrast, our own state of Washington, now 13th in population and a member of the union for 130 years, not once has had a significant impact on the selection of a major party presidential nominee.

It is best that presidential campaigns begin in small states. Otherwise, the more obscure candidates would have no realistic chance of success.

In truth, the current system is undemocratic, unrepresentative and in violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

Much fairer would be a system that allocated slots in the primary and caucus schedule by lottery. The smaller states would continue to receive some measure of preference, but those states that had voted first, second or third in one electoral cycle would be barred from these positions in the next.

With hawkeye vigilance and granite resolve, Iowa and New Hampshire certainly would fight any effort at electoral reform. Doubtless, they delight in the attention and prestige that are showered on them every fourth year. In accord with the intent of our Constitution and with the national interest, however, this should change.

 

Joseph Tipler

Centralia