Well, in order to answer that question, we have to pose another: what factor should determine the first state. For the sake of this link, the assumption will be “It should be the state which best reflects America.”
You may supply other criteria, of course, but let’s go with this one for now in order to evaluate which state best meets that particular criterion, since the media chatter for two weeks or more has centered around the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of America.
So. If you were a marketing company testing a new product for a possible national roll-out, which state would be the test market most suitable to best estimate your product’s success in the full USA?
The answer supplied by this firm in 2016 was Illinois. It contains the correct proportion of midwestern farms, urban concentrations, rich suburbs and small towns. It contains approximately the correct proportion of whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians, all in the approximately representative proportion of religions. It contains the proper proportion of elite universities, graduates from functional colleges, people with some college, high school grads and high school drop-outs. It contains the right mix of liberals, moderates and conservatives. It contains the right mix of income levels. Given all of those factors, campaigning in Illinois does not allow for pandering to small town and rural White America, as the candidates do in Iowa and New Hampshire, but the mix in Illinois also precludes pandering to any other groups. Any position taken there must either appeal across-the-board to one’s party base, or must be a calculated risk, just as in the whole of America.
The film which did this study compared dozens of factors in each state to national averages, then distilled all of those specifics down to five general categories. Illinois finishes among the top six best matches in all five categories, and is the absolute best match in demographic and income factors.
In contrast: New Hampshire is one of the states least representative of America (nearby Vermont is the least typical state), and Iowa is somewhere in the middle.
Voters in several states are experimenting with alternative primary systems that might elect more moderate representatives. California and Washington State have adopted a “top two” system, in which candidates from both parties compete in a nonpartisan primary, and the two candidates who get the most votes run against each other in the general election—even if they’re from the same party. States, which Louis Brandeis called “laboratories of democracy,” are proving to be the most effective way to encourage deliberation at a time when Congress acts only along party lines.
California and Washington aren’t great either because they provide an impetus for lesser known candidates to drop out in order to ensure that there aren’t 2 Republicans or 2 Democrats on the ballot.
The State Treasurer of Washington won because he and another Republican both received about 24% of the vote while all of the other candidates were Democrats and they combined for about 52% of the vote. This wasn’t the biggest deal because the person who won was, I believe, a former Deputy State Treasurer and he received the endorsement of several former Democratic state treasurers. However, I think it shows the potential problem if one party has, say, 8 candidates running and the other party has just 2.
Maine has adopted Instant Runoff in both the primaries and the general election so that the winning candidate for both nominations has to ultimately receive at least 50% of the vote in their respective nominations, that also encourages candidates who can build support beyond their own base.
Illinois has a great tradition of corruption. And if you’re from there and have a big following already it makes it hard for lesser knowns.
That would essentially eliminate anyone who didn’t have a big war chest from the start.
One positive thing about early primaries is that they give the lower-tier candidates at least an chance to gain a following and some momentum.
You are exactly right about why having all primaries on the same day would be a mistake. The only downside to Illinois that I can see is that as a much more populous state, it is probably much more expensive to campaign there, again favoring campaigns that start out with the most money and probably name recognition. It would make it harder for a Barack Obama to build momentum and beat out an early front runner for the nomination. It would also be harder to spend time with a significant number of voters prior to the primary as candidates do in Iowa and New Hampshire, again probably to the detriment of insurgents.
All at once, one day. All parties, one primary. Say, early August.
Top two compete for the general election in November. Regardless of party.
new state motto? “Iowa Somewhere in the Middle”
Replacing their old one, “Iowa: we’re on the map!”