Think Iowa and N.H. have too much power? Blame the media

Matt K. Lewis Senior Contributor
Font Size:

It’s that time again. The quadrennial season for decrying the outsized power granted to Iowa (and, to a lesser extent, New Hampshire).

After all — the logic goes — why should such small states (with such little diversity) exercise such outsized power in terms of picking political nominees?

This year, it was Gail Collins’ turn to mock the fact that — if things go really well! — a measly 150,000 Iowans might participate in this year’s caucuses.

As Collins notes,

That is about the same number of people in Pomona, Calif. Imagine your reaction to seeing a story saying that a plurality of people in Pomona, Calif., thought Newt Gingrich would be the best G.O.P. presidential candidate. Would you say, “Wow! I guess Newt is now the de facto front-runner?” Possibly not.

Collins, of course, makes a valid point. On one hand, it seems absurd that these small states are so important. On the other hand, one would be hard-pressed to find a better solution.

If not Iowa, then which state would be better?

Another option — a national primary day (which some support) — would truncate the nominating process, making it impossible for candidates like Rick Santorum (who worked hard and visited all 99 Iowa counties) to slowly gain steam. It would mean that big money candidates always win, and it would minimize the amount of time for vetting the candidates.

Forcing candidates to endure losses and wins — and pick themselves back up again and head to another state — separates the wheat from the chaff. It shows character. It shows who can take a punch. It also allows time for chinks in their armor to emerge.

Like democracy itself, our current primary system (which has only been around since 1972, or so) might just be the worst system in the world … except all the others.

But here’s the irony of the media criticism: The media is largely responsible for bestowing such power on these early states.

In order to win the Republican nomination, a candidate must secure 1,144 delegates.

Guess how many delegates will be awarded to the winner of the Iowa caucuses? — zero. (Although Iowa has 28 delegates, the caucuses are “non-binding,” meaning the delegates are not bound by the results.)

Of course, you might be thinking, Iowa is still very important because of the momentum it gives a candidate heading into New Hampshire. But here’s the rub: New Hampshire only has 12 delegates (the number is low, party because they were penalized for moving the primary to January.)

Thus, if Mitt Romney wins in Iowa and New Hampshire — a result which would surely lead us to speculate the Romney juggernaut is all but unstoppable — he would have earned of just 12 of the 1,144 delegates he needs. (Of course, he won’t win all 12 of New Hampshire’s delegates.)

The power of Iowa and New Hampshire is essentially psychological. Perception is reality. They matter because we say they matter — because of the wall-to-wall media coverage they engender. The media coverage grants publicity and buzz. This momentum translates into tangible support (and campaign dollars) for the winners.

Iowa and New Hampshire are worth less than 1 percent of all the delegates required to win the GOP nomination — yet, I’d venture to say the media spends far more than 1 percent of their their campaign coverage resources on these two small states.

This, of course, is basically an open secret. Reporters — who just spent months of their lives traipsing around Iowa — have little incentive to declare it largely irrelevant, after all.

Ultimately, if you believe Iowa and New Hampshire are too powerful, don’t blame the states and don’t blame the political parties.

Blame the press.

Matt K. Lewis