WHY NEW HAMPSHIRE AND IOWA? (COMMENT)

WHY NEW HAMPSHIRE AND IOWA? (COMMENT) Annalisa and Nick both asked in comments here why New Hampshire and Iowa have such power in choosing Presidential nominees. Dick Weisfelder commented that the problem arises from not having an agreed way of sequencing primaries. I think that the current system has the effect of shortening the process. Two or perhaps three leading contenders are selected on the basis of a small sample of states (often just New Hampshire and Iowa). The final elimination then goes quickly. There are a lot of possible models, but I think that having only a few early primaries will generally lead to the elimination of all but one candidate. This article linked in this post reflects the view that the party professionals do not want a contested convention, partly because strange things happen at conventions. I argued here that things could work out well for a party with a contested convention. I agree with Dick that the Canadian process would be a great improvement.