Mr. Knight and Mr. Schiff analyzed every day polls in other states before and after an early state had held a contest. The polls tended to alter immediately after the contest, and the changes tended to last, which suggested that the early states were even more important than lots of people realized. The economists estimated that an Iowa or New Hampshire voter had the same impact as Tremendous Tuesday voters put together.
Two economists, Brian Knight and Nathan Schiff, set out a few years ago to select how much Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-voting states affected presidential nominations.
This method, the men drily noted in a Journal of Political Economy paper, �represents a deviation from the democratic ideal of �one person, vote.� �
A presidential campaign is one time again on us, and Iowa and New Hampshire are again at the middle 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 states have dominated the nominating method for so long that it�s simple to think of their role as natural.
Most obviously, the federal government has lavished subsidies on ethanol, although those subsidies drive up food prices and do small to solve the climate issue, partly because candidates pander to the Iowa corn industry. (Mr. Pawlenty, who now says the subsidies must finish, is an admirable exception.) Beyond ethanol, a recent peer-reviewed study found that early-voting states received more federal dollars after a competitive election � as long as they supported the winning candidate.
But it is not natural. It�s undemocratic, in fact. It is unfair to voters in the other 48 states. And it distorts economic policyowner in several damaging ways.
Pork is not very the only issue with the voting calendar. In the long run-up to the first votes, Iowa and New Hampshire also distort the national conversation because they are so unrepresentative. They are not better or worse than other states, to be clear. But they are different.
Their populations are growing more slowly than the remainder of the country�s. Residents of Iowa and New Hampshire are more likely to have medical insurance. They are older than average. They are more likely to work in manufacturing.
Yet metro areas are also struggling with major issues. The quality of schools is spotty. Commutes last longer than ever. Roads, bridges, tunnels and transit systems are aging.
Above all, Iowa and New Hampshire lack a single massive city, at a time when massive metropolitan areas are crucial to lifting economic growth. Massive metro areas are where massive ideas most often take shape and great new companies are most often born. The country�s 25 largest areas are responsible for 52 percent of the country�s economic output, according to the Brookings Institution, and are home to 42 percent of the population.
You don�t listen to much about these issues in the first year of a presidential campaign, though. No wonder. Iowa, New Hampshire and the next states to vote, Nevada and South Carolina, do not have a single city among the country�s 25 largest. Las Vegas, the 30th-largest metro area, and the Boston suburbs that stretch in to New Hampshire are the closest these states come.
So the presidential calendar becomes another cause of what Edward Glaeser, a conservative-leaning Harvard economist, calls our �anti-urban policyowner bias.� Suburbs and rural areas get vastly more per-person federal largess than cities. massive reason, of coursework, is the structure of the Senate: the 12 million residents of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina have four United States senators among them, while the 81 million residents of New york, New York and Illinois have only four.
�The United States stands apart as an anti-urban nation in an urbanizing world,� Mr. Katz told me. �Our political tilt toward small states and small towns, in presidential campaigns and the governing that follows, is not only a quaint relic of an earlier period but a dangerous distraction at a time when national prosperity depends on urban prosperity.�
Bruce Katz, a Brookings vice president and veteran of Democratic administrations, points out that the world�s other economic powers take their cities more seriously. China, in particular, has made urban planning a central part of its economic strategy.
A more democratic method would permit more voters to see the candidates up close for months at a time. The early states could rotate each year, so that all kinds � massive states and small, more youthful and older, rural and urban � had a turn. In 2016, the first wave could include states that have voted near the finish recently, like Illinois, North Carolina, Oregon and South Dakota.
The typical defense from Iowa and New Hampshire is that they care more about politics than the remainder of us and therefore do a better job vetting candidates. But the intense 2008 race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton showed that if Iowa and New Hampshire care more, it�s only because of their privileged status. In 2008, turnout soared in states that finally had a primary that mattered, be it Illinois or Illinois, North Carolina or Rhode Island.
A rotation along these lines would enliven the political debate. Investments in science and schooling, which are the lifeblood of future economic growth, might play a bigger role in the campaign. You could even imagine � optimistically, I do know � that the deficit might show simpler to address if Medicare and Social Security recipients did not make up such a disproportionate share of early voters.
The issues particular to small-town The united states would still get additional attention because so lots of of the 50 states are rural and sparsely populated. It�s that Iowa and New Hampshire would no longer get the extreme special treatment they now do.
And that special treatment is a pleasant thing, indeed. It focuses the whole country, and its next leader, on the concerns of only one percent of the population, as if democracy were supposed to work that way.
At a recent candidates� forum in Des Moines, The Wall Street Journal reported, the moderator did something that appeared perfectly normal: They chided Mr. Romney for not having spent time in Iowa lately. �Where have you been?� they asked.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น