{"id":40802245860,"date":"2020-03-12T09:51:09","date_gmt":"2020-03-12T13:51:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?p=40802245860"},"modified":"2024-06-03T11:47:11","modified_gmt":"2024-06-03T15:47:11","slug":"should-we-reform-the-presidential-nomination-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/2020\/03\/12\/should-we-reform-the-presidential-nomination-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Should We Reform the Presidential Nomination Process?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Vincent Grassi, Monmouth University Polling Institute Intern<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The process by which the Democratic\nParty chooses its presidential nominee has faced increased scrutiny this\nelection cycle, especially after a flop at the Iowa caucuses. One argument has\nbeen that the first two states that hold a caucus or primary, Iowa and New\nHampshire, do not represent the demographics of the Democratic Party and hold\nan outsized influence on choosing the party\u2019s nominee.  A majority of Democratic voters (56%) believe\nthat Iowa\u2019s caucuses and New Hampshire\u2019s primary have too much influence over\nwho wins the party\u2019s presidential nomination, according to the Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em><\/a>.\nOne in four say having these states go first hinders the party\u2019s ability to\nnominate the best candidate. It may be time to shake up the primary calendar\nand try something different. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To begin, what are some of the\nadvantages of having Iowa and New Hampshire go first? Candidates with limited\nfunds can stay competitive in small states with less expensive media markets\nbut would not be able to compete against more well-funded candidates in bigger\nstates. Since Iowa and New Hampshire are small states, candidates who are less\nwell known or have fewer supporters are given the opportunity to gain traction\nand secure a win, something that would not be possible if larger states like\nCalifornia went first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Candidates turn to different methods\nof campaigning in these states to establish closeness with the electorate. For\nexample, in small states like New Hampshire, candidates hold small, intimate\ngatherings with voters like town halls. In bigger states there wouldn\u2019t be an\nincentive to hold these types of events. Candidates would be more focused on\nholding large rallies and giving interviews on television. Also, candidates would\nhave little motivation to campaign in a smaller state like New Hampshire if a larger\nstate like Florida (with more delegates to be won) were to vote first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there are some disadvantages to the current system as well. The first two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, provide poor representations of the demographics of the Democratic Party. For example, having New Hampshire as the first primary has been criticized because the state\u2019s racial demographics are 90% white, with African Americans only making up 1.7% of the population, Asian Americans 3%, and Hispanic Americans 3.9% according to the US Census Bureau.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The addition of Nevada and South Carolina as early states somewhat offsets the problem regarding the demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire. With this, some claim the first four states in the nomination process are somewhat representative of the country. Hispanic Americans account for 29% of Nevada\u2019s population. In South Carolina, African Americans account for 27% of the population and make up an even larger share of the Democratic electorate. The media uses these states to gauge candidates\u2019 support among minority groups.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 However, if a candidate does not perform well\nin Iowa and New Hampshire, they are usually compelled to drop out of the race\nand never have the opportunity to compete in more diverse states. The\ncandidates that perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire get increased media\ncoverage that propels their campaigns. The process is all about gaining\nmomentum leading up to Super Tuesday. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iowa\u2019s caucus system has been\ncriticized for being noninclusive. It disenfranchises large parts of the\nstate\u2019s population due to its design and procedures. According to the ACLU of Iowa<\/a>, the physical demands of caucusing in\nthe state, \u201c\u2026 makes participation difficult for people who can’t get or afford\nchild care, people living with disabilities or mobility issues, people who lack\ntransportation, and people who work evenings.\u201d According to the Brookings Institute<\/a>, the current way, \u201ccaters to older\nvoters and those for whom politics is a passion.\u201d Voter turnout in Iowa was also\nlower than expected this year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are some possible solutions or\nreforms that can be made to better the process? There are multiple different\noptions and proposed reforms that can replace or complement what we have now. The\nMonmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em><\/a>\nshows a majority of Democratic voters (58%) favor a national primary day. A\nnational primary day would make it so that all states hold a presidential\nprimary election on the same day. Proponents of this reform claim that this\nsystem would be more efficient, however, opponents argue that it would be very\nexpensive for candidates to compete on a national scale. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another reform that garnered 15%\nsupport in the poll is having a few other states hold their contests on the\nsame days as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. This would keep the drawn\nout process of the current system and calm the criticism surrounding Iowa and\nNew Hampshire going first. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the Monmouth Poll, one in\nten support replacing the current system with grouped primaries. Rotating\nregional primaries is one reform that The National Association of Secretaries\nof State has supported. This would group states by their geographical location\n(making segments) and create the primary schedule according to region. The\norder of these primary elections according to region would be rotated each\nelection cycle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another possible reform is the\nelimination of caucuses and establishing primaries with ranked-choice voting. Not\nonly does this address the concern over the accessibility of caucuses, but it may\nalso answer the concerns expressed by Democrats over how much influence early\nstates like Iowa and New Hampshire have over the candidate pool. Ranked-choice\nvoting would enable fringe candidates to stay in the race even after Iowa and\nNew Hampshire by allowing people to rank their preferences in a primary vote. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ranked-choice voting could ensure that nominees have broader support among the electorate. According to FairVote, \u201cThe system incentivizes candidates to work together rather than attack one another in the hopes of earning backup choices, and to campaign to a broad swath of voters rather than just their own base.\u201d Nevada used ranked-choice voting in their early voting period which helped increase voter turnout significantly according to FairVote.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It might be time to give more\nconsideration to reforming the current presidential nomination system. Criticism\nover Iowa\u2019s and New Hampshire\u2019s status as the first states to vote on\npresidential candidates has caused many to reexamine the process. Within our country\u2019s\nhistory, the way political parties nominate their presidential nominees has\nevolved and changed to suit cultural shifts. By weighing the advantages and\ndisadvantages of the current system, we can propose the right reforms. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Vincent Grassi, Monmouth University Polling Institute Intern The process by which the Democratic Party chooses its presidential nominee has faced increased scrutiny this election cycle, especially after a flop at the Iowa caucuses. One argument has been that the first two states that hold a caucus or primary, Iowa and New Hampshire, do not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40802245860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40802245860","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40802245860"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40802245860\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802257903,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40802245860\/revisions\/40802257903"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802245860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40802245860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40802245860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}