In defense of Iowa and New Hampshire

Blogger extraordiniare MattS argues that Iowa shouldn't have so much say. "It seems to me that Iowa is a gimmick more than anything; 3% of a state shouldn't determine the next President. Despite all the resources invested here, most people just don't care." The sad thing is, most people don't care anywhere, even in 2000 when pundits kept saying over and over how close it was. Turnout barely got above 50%.

For some reason, no other states besides Iowa and New Hampshire seem to be capable of taking their place without ruining much of what is good about those states. So here's my pro-list on both.

1. Both are swing states: Bush barely lost Iowa and Gore barely lost New Hampshire.
   
2. The Midwest is a battleground area in 2004, where Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri seem to be the biggest targets for both parties.
   
3. New Hampshire hates taxes, and so do swing voters, going through New Hampshire makes democratic candidates rethink their approach to taxes (just look at Clark or Lieberman's plans tailor made for the state).
   
4. Those who do vote/caucus are highly engaged for the most part and care deeply about the issues. Try to find a sizable population like that in any other state. It takes decades to cultivate this political culture.
   
5. Since they are small, candidates must rely on doorknocking, visibility, calls, town halls and the like, not Television like in bigger states were you simply can't be everywhere. This helps more marginal candidates who would otherwise be drowned out with money from other insider politicians (see Bush versus McCain in New Hampshire). Also, it gives candidates a chance to learn how to speak to real people like a human being (see the marked improvement of Kerry from Iowa and Clark from New Hampshire-- and Dean from both since 2002).
   
6. These states tend to eliminate excessive candidates early, so that most voters down the road won't be confused with too many varieties of vanilla [although most people expect most of the 8 democrats to remain until February 4th, about the same time of year as past years.]
   
7. These states need media attention and money that comes with "political tourism" unlike a New York, Texas, Florida, or California.

Now Matt is right, there are lots of problems with the current system, most of which would be eliminated if primaries were made more accessible to more people. If all states adopted open, mail-in/internet primaries (where both Independents, Democrats, and Republicans can vote for a McCain, a Dean, a Lieberman or a Clark). This way, poorer, internet based insurgency campaigns would have more of a fighting chance against institutional types (Bush, Gephardt, Kerry, et al) by gaining free attention via the media and internet and getting everyone to vote without having to brave the cold or rain or whatever.

It may make it harder for the media to call elections, but this is an art that is dying fast, due to cell phones and caller ID and privacy oriented Americans. As hooked on politics as I am, I could wait until morning. Really I could.