WHY IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE GET TO GO FIRST

Whispers of a potential brokered convention this July have a lot of people buzzing. Depending on whom you listen to the prospect of Democrats arriving in Milwaukee without a consensus candidate is either a disaster for the party or a healthy dose of democracy.

How did we get here? If California went before Iowa and New Hampshire, would the trajectory of the race be different? It is far more diverse and will send eight times the number of delegates to the convention compared to those two states combined. Do they deserve to maintain their elevated status? Why are they first anyway?

States held presidential primaries for the first time in 1912, with North Dakota voting first. Eventual Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson lost there and six of the next nine contests, entering the convention with the second-most delegates. He would only secure the nomination after several dozen rounds of balloting.

Republicans did their best to counter-program with some drama of their own. Teddy Roosevelt was seeking a return to the White House by challenging his own handpicked successor — incumbent William Taft. Roosevelt won nine primaries compared to Taft’s two, but the majority of states still chose delegates selected by party elders. They sent mostly pro-taft delegations to the convention, securing his renomination and demonstrating the limited influence of the primary system.

New Hampshire established itself as the first-in-thenation primary in 1920, but candidates did not yet view participation as necessary. For example, Thomas Dewey entered the 1940 Republican convention with a substantial delegate lead despite skipping New Hampshire. The eventual nominee, Wendell Wilkie, competed in zero primaries or caucuses. Twenty years later John F. Kennedy’s stiffest competition for delegates at the 1960 convention was Lyndon Johnson, who did not compete in any nominating contests.

After the chaos of their 1968 convention, Democrats tried to reform the nominating process. One goal was to formalize the calendar, but back then a state’s position

Crawford is an assistant professor of political science and international relations at the University of San Diego. His research focuses on election administration, state and local politics and voting behavior.

on the timeline was not seen as strategic the way it is today. Because Iowa’s system of caucuses and conventions took a long time, it was a logical choice to go first — not because Iowa itself was important, but because it needed to start early.

Meanwhile, New Hampshire continued to act as the first primary state, and even passed a law in 1979 requiring their date be set at least seven days earlier than any other primary. While Iowa has no such law, Democrats have maintained Iowa’s status as their first caucus while Republicans have kept it among the first few each election year.

The year 1972 thus began a largely unbroken string of election cycles with Iowa and New Hampshire going first, ensuring heightened media attention. Jimmy Carter is often cited as the first president to recognize the ability for these early states to propel a candidate with a limited national profile to prominence, winning both in 1976.

Winning early has not guaranteed nomination, however. Rather than being overly predictive of the eventual nominee, Iowa and New Hampshire have acted as a catalyst for dropping out. Candidates don’t need to win these states so much as they need to avoid losing outright.

Excluding races with an incumbent president, winners of these states get the nomination about half of the time. Out of 32 contests between these two states (18 Democratic and 14 Republican) since 1972, the eventual nominee won 17. Candidates who underperform often drop out quickly. In 2016 the 12-candidate Republican field that entered Iowa was cut in half after New Hampshire. In 2008, one-third of the Democrats ended their campaign after the Granite State. This winnowing effect is one reason their permanent placement at the front of the calendar has been called into question, but changing the order would be easier said then done.

State governments set the date for primaries but parties control caucus states. In both cases the national parties attempt to influence when nominating contests are held. In 2008, Florida and Michigan, seeking more influence, moved their primaries to January despite a Democratic Party rule protecting Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada as the first four contests. As “punishment,” the party refused to seat the delegates from those Florida and Michigan, effectively squashing their influence at the convention.

There will surely be a reexamination of Iowa’s role after the reporting problem it experienced in the 2020 Democratic caucus, but whether that means a change in date, a switch to a primary system or something else entirely, state and party officials will have to reach a consensus.