Is it fair that states like Iowa and New Hampshire should have such an impact on who is nominated?

Answer 1

Well they only have such an impact because we (the voting citizens) let the results have such an impact. If the media didn't act as if they were deciding factors and the voting public did not sway their votes because of those first few caucuses and primaries, then they would not have an impact at all.

And often times the Iowa caucus doesn't have that much of a deciding impact. For instance, in the Republican race in 1988, Bob Dole took 37% of the caucus attendees in Iowa, Pat Robertson took 25%, and George Bush Sr. took 19%, but Bush Sr. eventually took the party candidacy. On the Democratic side in 1992, Iowan native Tom Harkin took 76% of caucus votes, whereas Bill Clinton took only 3% but ended up being the party candidate at the national convention.

So in short, the only unfairness of Iowa and New Hampshire having their primary/caucuses first is created by the public. If we all knew who we wanted for president and stuck with that vote no matter what, it wouldn't matter if your state voted first or last. :-)

Answer 2

because of the fact they have their common or caucus first, so they are the 1st to vote. First consequences are enormous information. New Hampshire's shape says they could have the 1st common interior the rustic. i've got consistently puzzled what might ensue if another state placed the comparable element of their shape....

Answer 3

No, But its based on old school ideas, and what used to be.
Then a lot of states tried to move up there primaries. but Iowa and NH had a fit.
I do not pay attention to it, but sure those states LOVE the spending and money they get from it, that's what its all about bottom line.

I am an adult, and pick whom I want for president, not because a few other places picked someone else, whats the point of voting if you need another state to tell you how to vote?
If you do,well hate to see how yea decide what to eat for dinner each night :)

Answer 4

No, it is not fair that two random states have far more influence than any other two states. Even Yahoo says that if obama losses in Iowa and New Hampshire he is as good as dead.

Answer 5

I believe it is entirely fair to have Iowa and New Hampshire be the first states to begin the elections. Those are small states and candidates...any candidate can try to be a president. The thing about those states that most people don't understand is that you can visit the people in all the towns. You can not do that in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Michigan etc. The only concern to deal with is the racial issue. Yes, those states are almost completely white but all the small states are that way and the best way for politicians to test their issues and priorities is to be in a small state. Don't change the rules just because a few politicians think they have the right to change the process and use their state for the first in the nation election. We need and must have small states for elections so that anyone can try for the presidency. Isn't that democratic?!

Answer 6

yes... why not... I wanna see who they are voting for.

Answer 7

Even though these states hold early primaries, you can still vote however you want to in your state's primary. Don't be discouraged or unduly influenced by the early results. Vote for your candidate.

Answer 8

No, it is not fair, and these two states have such a big impact because we (the voters), abetted by the media, say they have a big impact.
In fact, the total delegates at stake in these two states are a tiny fraction of the number needed to win the nomination, and the major candidates will split that tiny fraction among them.
Check slate.com and the poll results tab,

Answer 9

Why shouldn't it be fair?

It has to start somewhere, right?

Iowa is as good a place as any.

Answer 10

The outcomes in those states will not influence my vote. I make my own decisions.