Sunday, Dec. 11, 2022 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
In recent years, the nation has struggled with structural issues that tilt the political playing field toward minority rule. Among these structural issues is a primary election schedule that overlooks the beautiful and stunning diversity of the American electorate.
By giving one set of voters from one state in one geographical region — historically Iowa for caucuses and New Hampshire for primaries — the title “first,” we have also given those voters, states and regions an outsize influence over the perceived viability of presidential candidates moving forward.
Part of this problem was created by the pursuit of a common primary schedule, motivated by budget concerns and simplicity in communicating with voters. However, the nation’s two major political parties have radically different levels of representation among various racial, ethnic and identity groups. Those differences should be reflected in the process for selecting a presidential nominee — as should the reality that the Republican Party is actively seeking to silence certain marginalized communities.
Now, with the future of democracy on the line, Democrats are finally exploring new primary proposals to counter GOP efforts to reduce the power of America’s diverse electorate.
Sadly, the proposals currently being discussed don’t provide a real remedy.
We agree with activists and pundits that Black communities are woefully underrepresented in the current primary process that puts overwhelmingly white Iowa and New Hampshire first. But we disagree that giving South Carolina alone the first primary — as is currently proposed by President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party — solves the problem of misrepresentation or underrepresentation.
After all, South Carolina’s 5% Hispanic population and 0.33% Indigenous population are hardly representative of the United States, let alone the Democratic Party.
No single state should be given the outsize influence of being the “first” primary in the nation and determining who is or is not a viable candidate. Rather, a small group of geographically disparate and racially, ethnically, economically and culturally diverse states should all share the status of first. By holding a small set of geographically and culturally diverse primaries on the same day, we can ensure that the perception of viability is more accurate and increase candidate quality.
Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina could all be part of this collective first day. But so too could perennial battlegrounds with diverse populations and cultures such as Nevada, Georgia and Michigan.
Collectively, these states would represent a cross-section of the American experience. Returns in Michigan, one of the 10 largest states in the country in terms of population, could help candidates and parties better understand the opinions, beliefs and concerns of Rust Belt voters. Meanwhile, South Carolina (the 23rd-most populous state) and Georgia (eighth-most populous) would provide two different yet equally important glimpses into the heavily African American southeastern Bible Belt. And Iowa (32nd-most populous) and New Hampshire (42nd) could provide a view from the rural great plains and New England, respectively. Importantly, some of these states also represent a strong mixture of rural and urban population centers, which allows the sometimes different interests of both to be heard.
Our home state of Nevada is the logical choice to represent the West. After all, we have significant Indigenous and Latino populations whose voices deserve to be heard on Day One of the primary process. We are the epicenter of the great western water crisis that will ultimately define the entire West for generations to come. And thanks to our friendly tax laws, we are home to a wide variety of Western voters who previously resided in other states such as California, Utah, Arizona and Idaho — giving a glimpse into the political makeup of the western U.S. writ large.
In addition, candidates would be unable to focus their attention on a single set of voters in a single geographic region and a single set of issues each week, as they currently do in the lead-up to Super Tuesday. Instead, they will be forced to speak to a broader set of voters who reside in diverse geographic regions and have diverse social, economic and cultural interests. Yet with only a small number of states at play on the first primary day (or in any given week), local retail politics would not be sacrificed as it might be if all states held their primary on the same day.
We’ve written extensively in the past about the need to resist unnecessary burdens on voters such as voter ID or other tests of time, money and mobility. And we’ve promoted voter access through mail-in voting, early voting and same-day registration. But removing barriers to voting will have little effect on turnout if voters feel they have no voice in the candidate selection process and thus have no candidates in the general election whom they believe represent their interests. Grouping states in mini “Super Tuesdays” eliminates that problem.
In short, it’s time to do away with any system that grants a single state the power to set the tone for the entire national primary race. The United States is a racially, ethnically, economically, socially, culturally and geographically diverse nation. The president of the United States must represent this diversity and, as such, the system for choosing the candidates for the presidency should reflect that diversity.
