Iowa caucus at risk of losing first spot?

[Likely Voter]

The last two cycles have shown that the caucus system (at least in Iowa) in both parties is not designed for close races. In 2012 on the GOP side you actually had the wrong person declared winner only to be reversed a couple weeks later (perhaps too late for it to matter). And it is possible the same thing could happen on the Dem side for this year (there will at least be lingering doubts for some about the results).

And of course there is the issue (especially on the Dem side) that Iowa is not reflective of the party as a whole.

So, in 2020 at least one of the parties will have a competitive nomination contest and by 2024 at least the other will. So is Iowa's position in doubt?  Can a caucus in this state continue to have such an important role in the winnowing process? And if not, what would be better? And how would that be achieved? Could both parties agree to something different? Could we end up with different first contests? Could there be disagreements and states leapfrogging eachother to be first (possibly with national parties penalizing them).

This cycle the setting of the calendar was rather organized and peaceful. My bet is that for the next cycle it is not going to be. A lot of states are going to argue that Iowa has screwed up on both sides and lost its right to go first.

[NHI]

Republicans probably have more incentive to kill off the Iowa caucuses.  Between ethanol subsidies and a history of propping up hardline SoCons who are unacceptable to the general election median voter, it's almost all negatives for them.  On the Democratic side, there will be increasing demands to start in a more diverse state, but there's a stronger counter argument that caucus ground game is the main thing keeping them competitive in November.  If they scrap the 1st in the nation caucus, there's a substantial chance the state goes WV on them over the next several elections.  And they really need to hold up the floor with rural Northern whites to keep their EC advantage.

[sportydude]

I don't really have a problem with Iowa being the first caucus state. But why don't the parties hold their first caucuses in two different states on the same day? It would be way more representative.

[Kingpoleon]

Republicans probably have more incentive to kill off the Iowa caucuses.  Between ethanol subsidies and a history of propping up hardline SoCons who are unacceptable to the general election median voter, it's almost all negatives for them.  On the Democratic side, there will be increasing demands to start in a more diverse state, but there's a stronger counter argument that caucus ground game is the main thing keeping them competitive in November.  If they scrap the 1st in the nation caucus, there's a substantial chance the state goes WV on them over the next several elections.  And they really need to hold up the floor with rural Northern whites to keep their EC advantage.

Agreed. 132 Electoral Votes are on the line with Northern rural whites:

Arguably, Montana and Oregon could be put on the same list. If Democrats go down much more with rural Northern whites, Illinois could be Toss-up.

[SingingAnalyst]

This is probably a really dumb question, but how come the first primary (I favor replacing caucus--cauci?--with primaries) isn't in, say, Ohio? Ohio is a diverse state with cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Is Iowa? Is New Hampshire?

[eric82oslo]

This is probably a really dumb question, but how come the first primary (I favor replacing caucus--cauci?--with primaries) isn't in, say, Ohio? Ohio is a diverse state with cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Is Iowa? Is New Hampshire?

Every state should have a primary as you're suggesting. Besides that, I would suggest the parties to schedule the calendar after which states on average have been the closest to the popular vote over the last 5 presidential elections. Iowa and New Hampshire would still come pretty early, yet be grouped together with other states like Florida, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada and so on. The cool thing about such a rule is that the sequence of states would change, at least a little bit, every 4 years. States like Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and West Virginia would come towards the end of the primary season. So would big states like New York, California and Alabama.

[Nichlemn]

The first-in-the-nation status should be rotated. It's unlikely to do so, because of entrenched interests in IA and NH.

[pikachu]

Imo, there should be a single national primary. But beyond that, I think that trying to find a good way to change system, while keeping the staggered calendar would be tough. There's no obvious replacement for Iowa that I can see being broadly agreed on. It looks more likely that Nevada will be replaced in 2020 with Colorado or another Western state, at least on the GOP side, if they're a mess again.

[Nichlemn]

Imo, there should be a single national primary. But beyond that, I think that trying to find a good way to change system, while keeping the staggered calendar would be tough. There's no obvious replacement for Iowa that I can see being broadly agreed on. It looks more likely that Nevada will be replaced in 2020 with Colorado or another Western state, at least on the GOP side, if they're a mess again.

I think there's a fair bit of value in the staggered system. It allows more opportunities for lesser funded and lesser known candidates a better chance of winning.

[angus]

This is probably a really dumb question, but how come the first primary (I favor replacing caucus--cauci?--with primaries) isn't in, say, Ohio? Ohio is a diverse state with cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Is Iowa? Is New Hampshire?

caucuses.  It comes to English from the Algonquins, not from the Romans. 

I think NH and IA are both going to be looked at hard in the future.  Trump won big there with a few fly-by events and some big stadium speeches.  The whole point of letting them go first is because you have to get out and press the flesh and kiss the babies to win.  Retail politicking they call it, and it was thought that in New Hampshire and Iowa you have to do that to win, and those states are just small enough that you could actually go door-to-door and meet all the residents in one season.  That may have been true at one time, but clearly it is not true any more.  A candidate has shown that he can win New Hampshire the same way he wins any other state, so it's not special.  Neither is Iowa.