NEVADA SHOULD HOST THE NEXT FIRST PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

 

                                          …A very rare, well attended, Iowa Caucus

 

Former Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, he thinks Nevada should host the first presidential primary

 

Have you ever wondered why such importance is placed on the first two presidential election primaries?  Why should two states such as Iowa and New Hampshire be first?  They are both heavily rural, and both are almost all-White, which is not a representative look at our national population.  In addition, Iowa doesn’t have a primary election, they have a caucus.

Caucuses are an abomination that restrict participation to a tiny portion of the electorate.  They systematically exclude entire classes of people who can’t stand around in a gym for three plus hours on a Tuesday night.  That includes people with disabilities and many hourly shift workers.  Which is why almost no one shows up to them.  In Iowa, turnout for the 2020 general election was 73%; but in the state’s first-in-the-nation primary caucuses it was a pathetic 9%.

But there is hope for the future.

Democrats have an extremely important democracy agenda embodied in the For The People Act, which would safeguard voting rights, make the process of voting easier and more open, and combat voter suppression. This comes after the former president tried to overturn the national election, and at a time when Republicans at the nation’s states levels are ramping up suppression efforts.  They are finding new ways to keep people from voting.

This is why Democrats in Nevada, particularly former Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, think the time is right to finally liberate the party from the tyranny of Iowa and New Hampshire.

...Former Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid

So as long as Democrats are putting such a focus on restoring and securing our democracy, they ought to finally do the right thing and make their presidential nominating contest more democratic.

Reid, a party kingmaker who secured Nevada’s No. 3 spot on the calendar in 2008.  He has been making the case for Nevada to one of the top aides to President Biden.  Biden, who as president has significant influence on the Democratic National Committee.  Nevada Democrats plan to make their case in the coming months to the DNC, which sets the party’s nominating process.  Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic-majority Legislature is set to consider legislation that would shift Nevada’s caucuses to a primary and make it the first contest in all the states.

They have a good case to make that Nevada is a far better representation of today’s Democratic Party than the rural, almost all-White Iowa and New Hampshire.  Nevada is racially diverse, has a strong union presence and is much more pleasant to campaign in during the winter months.

In Nevada, they also have caucuses and things that were was just as bad with 65% turnout in the general election, and just 5% in their caucuses.                       

But while it’s going to be somewhere between difficult and impossible to get rid of the electoral college any time soon, reforming the primary system is something they could do relatively easily.

One important step would be to get rid of all caucuses in the U.S. entirely. 

Which was something the new White House press secretary Jen Psaki alluded to, when she was asked about the subject in her recent press briefing.

We can joke about this, but it’s actually quite serious: The reality is that the most important contests of the presidential nominating campaign are deeply undemocratic.  If Democrats are going to continue to make the case against the other undemocratic features of our system, they ought to clean up their own house.

If Nevada wants to be first in the country, the first thing it should do is follow through on switching from a caucus to a primary. At least New Hampshire boasted a respectable 42% primary turnout, compared with 76% in the general election.

New Hampshire is the biggest impediment to Nevada’s plans, because New Hampshire has a state law that requires that its primary be held at least seven days before any other state’s. (Iowa has a similar requiring that its caucus be the first.) But state laws can be changed.

Iowa and New Hampshire won’t go down without a fight.  In addition to loving the fact that presidential candidates treat them like kings every four years.  The two states’ political activists have convinced themselves that they deserve to have an elevated role in the process because they’re so thoughtful and serious about it.  But there is very little evidence to support that belief.

If Iowa and New Hampshire were too recalcitrant about giving up some of their power in the service of democracy, perhaps the federal government could make them an offer they can’t refuse. The withdrawal of federal funds can certainly focus any states mind, but we know that isn’t going to happen.

The ultimate goal shouldn’t be just replacing Iowa and New Hampshire with Nevada at the front of the line.  It should be getting rid of the whole idea of privileging one state over everyone else’s.

There are plenty of proposals out there for alternate formats.

For instance, some years ago Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) introduced a plan for rotating regional primaries.  This would allow the opportunity for every American to be pandered to at least once every few elections.

That could be the solution, or it could be some other idea. But if Democrats really want to show their commitment to reform that strengthens and enhances democracy, they ought to add the absolute need to reform the primaries to their agenda.  And perhaps get serious about getting rid of the electoral College. 

Today’s elections have shown that it is wrong to have someone that could win the popular vote by millions, but could lose the election, which did happen in 2016.

Copyright G. Ater 2021