Markos Moulitsas: Why is Iowa the decider?

With Iowa results in and the race moving to New Hampshire, one thing is clear: this should be the last year Iowa and New Hampshire have a stranglehold on the early nominating contests. 

There is no reason at all why these two grossly unrepresentative states should have a monopoly on helping decide either party’s nominee for president. According to the latest census data, Iowa is just over 87 percent non-Hispanic white, compared to the national average of 62.1 percent. New Hampshire is even worse, at 91.3 percent non-Hispanic white. And both Iowa and New Hampshire are older than the national average, as well as more agricultural and less urban. 

{mosads}In short, those states look little like mainstream America. 

“After Iowa and New Hampshire,” noted Democratic operative Joe Trippi, “the Democratic primary race the rest of the way is an electorate that is 54 percent white and 46 percent minority.” 

This stark disparity is indefensible.  

There’s no doubt that Iowa and New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status affords the states a major economic boost, with campaigns, media and volunteers spending big dollars on local establishments, from food to lodging to winter gear. In 2008 — the last time both parties had competitive campaigns — Des Moines alone pulled in $25 million, according to the local economic bureau. Media outlets get millions in advertising, and local politicos and the two parties benefit from generous donations from ambitious national politicians looking to grease their entry into their state. 

And of course, the state profits from fealty to parochial concerns. Nearly half of Iowa-grown corn goes into ethanol, which both liberals and conservatives despise. But few elected officials with national ambitions will step on that third rail for obvious reasons, perpetuating terrible public policy.

As if clinging to first-contest status weren’t bad enough, Iowa makes things worse by dispensing with simple democratic notions such as the secret ballot and the concept of one person, one vote. Votes are cast in the open, subject to pressure and lobbying from competing factions.

In addition, certain parts of the state get an outsize number of delegates, regardless of population. Given the virtual tie in the Democratic primary Monday night, the fact that Bernie Sanders’s support was disproportionately concentrated in a handful of college-town counties, it is quite likely he won the popular vote in the state and still “lost” because of the delegate count. 

Then there’s the arrogance of local boosters: “Iowa’s a level playing ground,” says Iowa GOP operative Eric Woolson. “And Iowa has an electorate that pays attention to what’s going on.” 

Laughable. 

In 2008, the record-setting Barack Obama campaign still only garnered the votes of 4 percent of Iowa’s population. Just 2 percent voted for Mike Huckabee, the Republican winner. In New Hampshire, barely half voted that year. And given that Iowa just gave Ted Cruz a victory, Iowa doesn’t get to claim it is “serious” about anything. 

Iowa and New Hampshire won’t relinquish favored status willingly, but the solution is easy: strip any state that ignores the calendar of its delegates. As for alternatives, there are several. We could rotate in a new state every cycle, choosing from a more representative list, like Illinois, Georgia, Virginia, Michigan or North Carolina. We could have a rotating regional primary, or the “Delaware plan,” in which all small states go first, at the same time, followed by three more primary dates, each with increasingly larger states. 

Forty-eight states and D.C. would benefit from an alternative. The American people — from both parties — would certainly benefit. 

So make it happen. 

Moulitsas is the founder and publisher of Daily Kos.