(
When it comes to the presidential nomination race it has been a standing tradition for the first four primaries and caucuses to be Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Yet this may not be the case for the 2024 election.
Last Friday, a proposed order of democratic primaries was proposed and accepted by a key party panel within the DNC. The proposed order had “South Carolina on Feb. 3, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada on Feb. 6, Georgia on Feb. 13 and then Michigan on Feb. 27.” Additionally, Iowa was set to be significantly later with the rest of the pack.
The plan is supposed to put “battleground states” earlier in the election and to better represent the diversity of the democratic vote. In an election there are really only about 8 “battleground” states with the rest swinging completely towards one side. Thus, by placing Michigan and Georgia earlier in the primary order those states are given more emphasis in the overall race.
Yet the main reason for the proposed change is to better represent the diversity of the democratic vote. South Carolina, a state in which Black voters were more than half of the democratic vote, was proposed to go first. Moreover, Nevada, a state with a sizable Latino democratic vote was moved up as well. On the other hand, the primarily White Iowa was sent back with the rest of the pack.
“We rely on these voters in elections but have not recognized their importance in our nominating calendar. It is time to stop taking these votes for granted, and time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the process,” wrote President Biden in a letter to the committee.
In the 2020 race, Biden struggled in both the Iowa and New Hampshire races, only receiving a meager 15.8% and 8.4% of the vote respectively. Thus, Biden is the main facilitator and strong supporter of the plan as it would give him a strong start in the nomination process and allow him to not have to rely on super Tuesday.
Yet, as of December 2nd, Biden has not announced his campaign for re-election. Whether Biden decides to run again or not, the proposed plan would greatly help any candidate get a strong start in the beginning of the race.
Another proposed part of the plan is the removal of caucuses. In recent years, caucuses are becoming less and less popular. Nevada has moved over to having a primary, and Iowa, a state who has a caucus, is no longer an important race according to the proposed plan.
Whether the proposed plan will ever see the light of day still remains to be seen. A main preventing factor is New Hampshire. New Hampshire has a state law that gives its secretary of state the power to move up the date of the primary to protect its first-in-the-nation status. Additionally, another criticism is that no state situated in the Central or Mountain time zone is represented in the opening primaries.
The plan now faces full DNC approval in early February of next year. Whether the plan, or a modified version of it, is approved or not, the 2024 democratic nomination race will depend greatly on the first primaries.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/us/politics/michigan-democratic-presidential-primary.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/us/politics/democrats-south-carolina-primary-2024.html
16 comments:
I think it makes sense to order the primaries in a way that highlights the democratic vote's diversity and puts focus onto swing states. Another good development that may occur, like you said, is the removal of caucuses. I think this is a good development because they don't represent the vote as best as possible: they are quite hard to access, and they are quite time consuming. If the focus is to be placed onto swing states, I believe that it's important that the vote in each state is truly represented, and caucuses can take away from that.
One frustrating aspect of the 2020 debate was how long it took Nevada to count votes. If nothing else, I hope this proposal speeds up the election process in general but I think it will also effectively give minority votes more of an advantage which is ultimately a good thing. I also agree with Tyler that caucuses should be phased out as they don't adequately represent everyone. Many working people with little free time are unable to attend caucuses and participate in debate.
Although Biden and the DNC's goal of bringing more attention to battleground states and states with more racially diverse populations, it still remains to be seen whether or not the states will approve these changes. For example, in Georgia, the Secretary of State, who is currently a Republican, has the power to set the states' primaries for both parties. Republicans may use these privileges to foil Democratic efforts to increase campaigning in battleground states.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/politics/dnc-south-carolina-primary-calendar-2024/index.html
It is obvious the DNC is trying to favor themselves by moving to states that will let them poll better. While bringing more attention to battleground states that happen to be more ethnically diverse is a positive for the overall representation of the nation, politicians will still generally do whatever it takes to increase their chances of election. I think the removal of the caucuses in favor of primaries is a positive change, although both tend to be skewed toward older whites. There needs to be political participation to increase the accuracy of the primaries and ensure they are representative of the population. It'll be interesting to see how politicians make their move over the next couple of years to maximize results through the primaries and changes in battleground states.
It is indeed a change to the election process, especially for the Republicans. Caucuses have more restrictions on the voters, which means that caucuses don't represent a wider audience but instead, only those who are already interested and involved in politics, free on work days (affluent), and most likely upper-middle class. If this does turn out to be the case for later elections, I hope that primaries will be able to bring much more efficient and true results to the voting results.
This is a great change that is going to change for both parties because caucuses are no longer going to be a thing. Due to this change, the past and future money and time spent on the Iowa caucus will be pushed to a different state, one that has more diversity and equal representation such as South Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, and Michigan. Furthermore, the main purpose of doing this right now in this moment is to benefit the DNC and push forward their own agenda because these states will help them in the future. I wonder how this will change the candidate's strategy for the upcoming 2024 elections and the ones that follow.
I think this is a great change that will hopefully set the precedent for future politicians and hopefully presidents. It reveals a major flaw of the process that is the electoral college; the order of which states votes are counted makes a huge difference on who has power in an election. Biden's legislation is the first stepping stone to a larger path to more say in government of minority citizens as well as everyone else instead of just a small governmental group. Therefore it's the first step to the positive that is getting rid of the electoral college.
I think this change in the Democratic primaries will be very interesting to watch in the 2024 election. With a more diverse group of people starting the influence of the first few primaries, analysts will probably have a harder time navigating the different order in order to find a front-runner for the election. This could throw off many candidates with campaigning strategies if they have their plan around the original primary election order. Nonetheless, I believe having more representative states vote first will be better for the entire country as having a true representation of the US will be a better influence than a dominant white state like Iowa for example.
This is an interesting choice to me--at face value it intends to include voices of color earlier on in the election than before. However, Democrats have consistently lost South Carolina in the general election, and will very likely continue to do so. While diverse, it's the least unionized state in the country. While this may increase the influence of a certain subset of voters, it's not a slam dunk. It's very good for Biden, who has already announced his plans to run in 2024 (formally? it's definitely known) but it's unclear what impact this will have on candidates after him, who may not have as much sway there or otherwise falter in a particularly "red" state.
It is amazing to see the increased representation that politicians are trying to implement in primaries. One of the many issues with the primary system is that it does not accurately represent American public opinion. The voter turnout in the primaries is already so low and far older than in general elections, paired with majority white states like Iowa and New Hampshire getting to wield the majority of the power. This drains out minority voices as stated in your post and comments above. I think this can provide us with insight into why many minority candidates do not make it as far in primaries as compared to white candidates. This is the first step in moving towards more diverse and representative candidates for all Americans. It is also a big step in giving minorities more power and representation in the United States. I think that these changes not only help minorities, but the democratic party will gain a more insightful initial primary season making sure that they can put forth the candidates that represent their party as a whole. With Republicans struggling in the midterms, they should take the same approach if they want more popular and representative candidates.
I hope that this precedent will have a positive effect on equal representation of all voices in the U.S. It is known that caucuses have a highly unfair advantage on the selection process for the president, and enables potential voters to refrain from casting their vote, as they feel their vote will not have an effect on the outcome of the election. I do wonder however how this will affect party organization in the next primary. This election cycle was tough for republicans, especially with the recent defeat in Georgia. It will be interesting to see how both parties will mobilize to promote themselves to appeal to more people than before.
I completely understand Biden's proposal in wanting to create more diversity in the voting process by having states that have more colored populations to vote first. It’s extremely important for their voices to be heard because they aren’t heard often or taken seriously by others that live near or in their surrounding areas, such as whites, which demonstrates the proposal to have dominated white population states to vote last. It may be a good way to change policy to have others be more aware of the necessity of diverse opinions in our surroundings, but I believe that this proposal will definitely bring anger to white dominant states because they may believe that their opinions aren’t as worthy to be heard as the Black or Latino communities that are having the ability to vote first. Additionally, with the election coming up, I also agree that this proposal will be an advantage to Biden if he were to run again because through this proposal he represented many diverse communities, which is a majority of the American population nowadays. Even if it’s still White majority, the diversity of the American population is still increasing.
I'd like to comment that this plan is really great example of a common update our government must undergo. With America becoming more and more diverse over time, I think it's imperative that we acclimate and update the way we vote to ensure everyone has a vote. It's only a small step, but one that is necessary to ensure every voice is heard and that our country moves in the right direction.
I completely agree with Biden's proposal and why he wants to push for a new change in which states have their primaries first. States like Michigan are starting to become more democratic and we can see this from 2020 when they voted blue and similar to this recent win Gretchen Whitmer had at 54.5%. I think it is a prime time to capitalize on states like Michigan and even Nevada with a growing diverse population that can turn the tides to some elections. While I don't see states like New Hamshire wanting to go later because they lose their whole purpose of wanting to go early, which is media coverage. I believe states late Iowa going later would make the most sense.
I think the decision to push the Democratic Primaries is an important one and it will be interesting to see the impact this will have on voting results. By shifting the times, there will be a bigger emphasis on swing states, which is highly important, especially when observing the outcomes of years past. Additionally, in class, we’ve discussed the media coverage given to these earlier primaries. The results from these swing states will hopefully impact voter turnout as more people will be encouraged to vote. As for caucuses, I think that their turn-out has proven to be low and I think this number will continue to decrease. Caucuses reduce voter turnout as they require a certain time commitment not many people can offer. With the possible removal of caucuses and the push to move the Democratic primaries earlier, I think the 2024 primaries will hold promising results.
Post a Comment