As presidential election years approach, it's not unusual to hear reservations about the primary schedule, and in particular, the huge influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. For example, here is _The New York Times_' **David Leonhardt** with [reservations](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=politics) about the democratic bona fides of our presidential nomination process:>A presidential campaign is once again upon us, and Iowa and New Hampshire are again at the center of it all. On Thursday, Mitt Romney will announce his candidacy in Stratham, N.H. Last week, Tim Pawlenty opened his campaign in Des Moines. The two states have dominated the nominating process for so long that it’s easy to think of their role as natural.>But it is not natural. It’s undemocratic, in fact. It is unfair to voters in the other 48 states.Among other things, as Leonhardt explains, Iowa and New Hampshire are older, whiter and wealthier than the rest of the country. They lack a single big city, and their influence on the nomination process ends up distorting economic policy in substantial ways (i.e. continued congressional support for ethanol subsidies). As a solution, Leonhardt suggests a rotating primary schedule, where different states inaugurate the presidential election season each cycle. For 2012, it might be Iowa and New Hampshire, but for 2016, it might be Virginia and Oklahoma, and for 2020, it might be New York and Colorado.There's a lot to like about this approach, but if there's a downside, it's that it might disadvantage lesser-known candidates, in the event of "big state" opening primaries. Moving California to the beginning of the primary schedule is great if the goal is privileging a more representative primary electorate, less so if you're trying to enhance the ability of lesser-known candidates to find success. How does the 2008 **Obama** campaign look if Texas is the first primary, and not Iowa? Would the Obama campaign be as equipped to contest the primary electorate, or would they be overwhelmed by the resources of the Clinton camp? Likewise, given his money and organization, large state primaries would advantage **Mitt Romney** above his competitors. For better or for worse, the primacy of Iowa gives **Tim Pawlenty** (and others) a chance to compete and grab the national spotlight.Of course, the nomination system might be stronger than I think; most candidates would adjust their strategies in the event of a Pennsylvania opening primary, as opposed to Iowa and New Hampshire. And truly competitive ones -- those that have significant support from party activists and elites -- would remain strong, even if they are disadvantaged by the size of the opening primaries. Still, given the extent to which this would be a significant change in the nomination process, it's worth considering the possible disadvantages. Should Iowa and New Hampshire Give Someone Else a Turn?
As presidential election years approach, it's not unusual to hear reservations about the primary schedule, and in particular, the huge influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. For example, here is _The New York Times_' **David Leonhardt** with [reservations](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=politics) about the democratic bona fides of our presidential nomination process:>A presidential campaign is once again upon us, and Iowa and New Hampshire are again at the center of it all. On Thursday, Mitt Romney will announce his candidacy in Stratham, N.H. Last week, Tim Pawlenty opened his campaign in Des Moines. The two states have dominated the nominating process for so long that it’s easy to think of their role as natural.>But it is not natural. It’s undemocratic, in fact. It is unfair to voters in the other 48 states.Among other things, as Leonhardt explains, Iowa and New Hampshire are older, whiter and wealthier than the rest of the country. They lack a single big city, and their influence on the nomination process ends up distorting economic policy in substantial ways (i.e. continued congressional support for ethanol subsidies). As a solution, Leonhardt suggests a rotating primary schedule, where different states inaugurate the presidential election season each cycle. For 2012, it might be Iowa and New Hampshire, but for 2016, it might be Virginia and Oklahoma, and for 2020, it might be New York and Colorado.There's a lot to like about this approach, but if there's a downside, it's that it might disadvantage lesser-known candidates, in the event of "big state" opening primaries. Moving California to the beginning of the primary schedule is great if the goal is privileging a more representative primary electorate, less so if you're trying to enhance the ability of lesser-known candidates to find success. How does the 2008 **Obama** campaign look if Texas is the first primary, and not Iowa? Would the Obama campaign be as equipped to contest the primary electorate, or would they be overwhelmed by the resources of the Clinton camp? Likewise, given his money and organization, large state primaries would advantage **Mitt Romney** above his competitors. For better or for worse, the primacy of Iowa gives **Tim Pawlenty** (and others) a chance to compete and grab the national spotlight.Of course, the nomination system might be stronger than I think; most candidates would adjust their strategies in the event of a Pennsylvania opening primary, as opposed to Iowa and New Hampshire. And truly competitive ones -- those that have significant support from party activists and elites -- would remain strong, even if they are disadvantaged by the size of the opening primaries. Still, given the extent to which this would be a significant change in the nomination process, it's worth considering the possible disadvantages. 
