Over the years, there’s been much discussion about perceived flaws in our presidential election system, from the Electoral College itself to the influence of big money to the current two-party system. Even if one concedes that all of these are problems, they aren’t easily fixed. Any real, fundamental reforms to the Electoral College or campaign finance laws would not only take a bipartisan consensus, but an overwhelming one, since they’d require a constitutional amendment.

There’s another issue, though, that doesn’t really receive much attention, even though it’s a much more serious problem, and one that’s more easily addressed: the current presidential primary process for both major parties.

Right now, it’s a hodgepodge of different rules, schedules and processes between the two parties and across the 50 states. That in and of itself isn’t necessarily a problem. Indeed, it’s a given as long as we maintain our federalist system. No, the problem is that the combination of our two-party system and our federalist structure means that every four years, the nominations are sealed before almost half the country – or more – even has a chance to weigh in. In this year’s Republican primaries, for instance, only 26 states voted before Nikki Haley withdrew; in 2016, for the Democrats, 28 states had voted by the time President Biden clinched the nomination.

While this is similar to the concerns raised about the Electoral College itself, it’s even more complicated because of the timeline factor. In the general election, all states have their elections on the same day; the importance of each state is determined by a combination of competitiveness and size, but not timing. That wasn’t always the case – before 1848, states held their presidential election on different dates, from September all the way through to December. This is where the expression “As goes Maine, so goes the nation” originated: Maine held its elections in September, and they often served as a predictor of the national outcome.

While we’re unlikely to ever have a single national presidential primary day, we could consolidate the schedule and standardize the rules.

If we were to eliminate the early primacy of New Hampshire and Iowa, we could have a group of different states vote first every four years, giving different Americans a greater say in the early nominating process. Proponents of Iowa and New Hampshire going first have argued in the past that they’re good early states because they’re small and rural, forcing candidates to engage in grassroots, on-the-ground campaigning and giving underdogs a better shot. If that were still the case, they’d have a point, but it’s increasingly become a relic of the past. While both states have had an impact on the primaries in recent years, it’s been decades since they truly propelled a candidate from obscurity to the nomination.

Moreover, New Hampshire and Iowa are hardly the only rural states in the country that could be used as initial proving grounds. In both cases, other states nearby could serve a similar purpose, or small, rural states from different parts of the country – like, say, West Virginia – could take their place. It might also be valuable to drop in a state near the median population range of states, like Wisconsin or Maryland, so candidates have to campaign in a larger, more diverse state early on.

If we bowed to pressure from New Hampshire and Iowa and kept them first, we could add in other states shortly thereafter – say, a week later. This could be a group of various kind of states from all over the country, testing candidates’ ability to appeal nationally to different demographics. It would also give more of the country a chance to participate in the process.

Both parties have made some changes lately. Democrats tried to give South Carolina a chance to go first this year, while Republicans pushed for more states to hold primaries rather than caucuses. Those are tweaks that favor the establishment, though, far from the sweeping reforms needed.

While it may be convenient for presidential candidates to focus on a few smaller states early on, it leaves much of the country by the wayside. It’s long past time for us to fundamentally change the presidential primary process, making it more reflective of the country as a whole. If we do, perhaps we’ll find both parties actually nominate candidates that enthuse voters, rather than forcing them to settle for the lesser of two evils.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel