Like most politicos, I gripe from time to time about how unfair it is that people in New Hampshire and Iowa get so much attention from presidential candidates. I rail that those states are not particularly diverse, and I complain that they get to talk to candidates in fairly intimate settings such as town hall meetings for free while the rest of us have to pay hundreds of dollars for such a privilege. So initially, I was excited when I heard that California was considering moving its primaries up to February. After all, California is a much more diverse state than Iowa or New Hampshire, and it would give a lot more people a say in picking their party’s presidential nominee. But I thought about it some more, and I realized that putting the California primary in February would do a disservice to the Democratic Party, and in some ways it wouldn’t be so good for democracy either.

Why It’s Bad for the Democratic Party

There’s the obvious argument that California Democratic primary voters are to the left of Democratic voters overall, and that this could produce a nominee who is “too liberal” to be “electable” in November. I’m not entirely sure I buy that argument, since I think presidential elections are unfortunately decided more by personality and media coverage than by issue stances.

My concern has less to do with the ideological impact of the California primary on the Democratic field, and more to do with the impact it would have on the Republican primary. I am less concerned about the California primary producing Democrats who are too liberal to win than I am about Republicans who are too moderate to beat emerging from California.

This is particularly true in 2008, when John McCain would probably be the biggest beneficiary in either party if the California primary were moved up to February. This post, as with all my future posts, is predicated on the assumption that McCain will be one of the hardest Republicans to beat, and that he is not the candidate Democrats want to run against in 2008. Putting a large Western state at the beginning of the primary cycle could enable McCain to clinch the nomination pretty early on, and some pundits are even speculating that McCain could make the state competitive in the general election. Attention California Democrats: this is political suicide for the party! As much as you would like to have a greater say in the nominating process, don’t do it! At least not this year!

Why It’s Not So Good for Democracy Either

Yes, an early California primary would give a lot more people a say in the process, and it would make the early primary voters a lot more diverse. But it would also make primary campaigns a LOT more expensive, making it much harder for underdog, grassroots-driven candidates to gain traction. And as Thomas Gangale points out, it would mean “the death of retail politics” outside of Iowa and New Hampshire.

As small and homogenous as those two states are, in some ways they are well suited for their role in choosing presidential candidates. For one, both states are swing states in the general election that have flipped between 2000 and 2004 and been won by small margins both years. The competitiveness of these states in the general election makes them a good testing ground of viability for both parties. They are also small enough that they can make candidates work for their votes by expecting them to attend town hall meetings and shake hands and answer their questions, and won’t just settle for being bombarded with television ads and robocalls.

My Solution: Make DC Important

The biggest problem I see with Iowa and New Hampshire playing such a big role is the lack of urban or minority representation in either of those states. So here’s my solution, at least on the Democratic side: make DC important. In 2004, DC Democrats tried to schedule an early primary to help call attention to the disenfranchisement of DC residents, but the party shot it down, and none of the major candidates except for Dean even appeared on the ballot. But maybe it’s time for Democrats to reconsider that decision this time around. Here are some advantages of giving DC residents an expanded role in the process:

• As I mentioned above, it would help call attention to the disenfranchisement of over 500,000 American citizens who lack Congressional representation and the right to make certain decisions about their own city
• The newspapers and broadcasts in Washington tend to have a more political focus than the rest of the mainstream media, and people in the Districttend to be more knowledgable of and focused on political issues than the rest of the country, making DC voters good candidates for the “gatekeeper” role that Iowa and New Hampshire voters currently play
• DC is a small jurisdiction like Iowa and New Hampshire, but it is an urban center with the minority population that Iowa and New Hampshire lack.
• We know Congress is unlikely to ever do away with ethanol subsidies because half the members want to run for president someday. If DC got to play this kind of a role in the primary process, it would make Congress more responsive to the needs of DC residents, and probably urban areas in general, since many of the policies that effect DC also effect other cities. Perhaps Southeast DC would not be so run down and dangerous if presidential candidates had to campaign there, and maybe more people would stay in DC instead of moving to the suburbs for political representation the way I did. An early primary in DC would make members of Congress who hope to run for president someday more responsive to issues such as affordable housing and safe schools, and give more of a voice to the urban African American community in the nominating process.
• Senators who run for president might try to score PR points by putting their campaign offices in some of the less desirable parts of DC, giving a boost to these areas the way President Clinton’s decision to locate his office in Harlem did for that area.
• The DC media market isn’t cheap, but it is only one media market, as compared to other states with a big city that have multiple expensive media markets. An early DC primary would add a lot less to the cost of primary campaigns than, say, an early California or New York primary. Plus, many presidential candidates are already located in Washington, and even the ones who aren’t are here pretty frequently for fundraisers and candidate forums and what not. So if they spent more time campaigning here, that could lower the overall travel cost for presidential candidates, helping to offset the increased cost of advertising.
• Kerry got 91% of the vote in DC in 2004. Isn’t there something to be said for rewarding our most loyal voters?