Evaluation of Proposed Electoral Reforms

Thesis Statement

The ability of first-in-the-nation primaries and caucuses to make or break a candidate, some analysts say that by the time most states' presidential nomination contests are held a few months later, the nominees for both parties have essentially already been decided. Consequently, analysts assert, primaries and caucuses held late in the primary season essentially become mere formalities, with little ability to meaningfully influence a party's candidate selection.

Introduction

In recent years, however, critics of the U.S. presidential nomination process have voiced concern that states with first-in-the-nation primaries and caucuses excessively influence the presidential selection process in both parties. Critics of first-in-the-nation presidential primaries and caucuses assert that the nation's current primary calendar gives a small number of states a disproportionate amount of influence over the presidential nomination process. Too often, opponents say, voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina drown out the voices of voters in other parts of the country. Critics point out that candidates who perform well in first-in-the-nation primaries often build unstoppable political momentum as a result, and go on to win nomination contests in other states while facing little competition.

Discussion

Opponents insist that other states must be given a greater role in determining both parties' presidential candidates. Leaders for the DNC and the RNC could accomplish that goal by allowing other states to hold their nomination contests at the same time as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, or by allowing different states to hold first-in-the-nation primaries and caucuses every four years, critics say. Reforming the U.S. primary schedule will make the presidential nomination contests more democratic by allowing a greater number of states to participate meaningfully in primary elections, opponents contend.

Supporters of first-in-the-nation presidential primaries and caucuses, meanwhile, say that the current primary system is not in need of reform. Backers assert that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have grown accustomed to vetting presidential aspirants every four years, posing challenging questions about domestic and foreign policy that are important to all Americans. Proponents insist that the current crop of first-in-the-nation states is skilled at choosing qualified, intelligent presidential candidates with national appeal.

Many backers warn against reforming the U.S. primary calendar. Not only might juggling the primary schedule have unknown and unexpected political consequences for both major parties, proponents contend, but altering the presidential nomination process might also hurt lesser-known candidates. Supporters insist that allowing many states to hold early primaries would make campaigning more expensive, because candidates would be forced campaign in a number of states at the same time. As a result, proponents say, wealthy presidential hopefuls would have a distinct advantage over poorer candidates, because rich candidates would have a much easier time traveling between states and funding televised advertising campaigns.

Primaries, Caucuses and the Path to the White House

In the U.S., there are two main types of presidential nominating contests; primaries and caucuses. Since the results of such competitions are binding, these competitions are the first official events of a presidential election season. Though primaries and caucuses ...