There are many things that the great states of Iowa and New Hampshire can claim.
Both boast areas of wonderful scenery. One is a haven in the middle of the northeastern forests and mountains. The other sits on the beginning steps of the great plains and the breadbasket of the Midwest.
Yes, they both make their own great contributions to the country, but there is one thing they are not.
They are not a proper representation of the entire country.
For some reason, around this time during an election year, people have the bad habit of treating these two states as just that.
The two states, with a combined population of more than 3 million, do not come close to the amount of people that America as a whole contains. Yet, after the presidential primaries in those respective states, some get the idea that Iowa and New Hampshire speak for all of us.
Florida is definitely not in the midwest, nor is it in the northeast. Therefore, you, the voters should not simply fall in line with what the voters in another state choose to do, despite how easy it may be to do so.
After the Iowa primary, we were bombed with ideas and predictions from all sorts of media outlets, from pundits to political analysts. They told us all the odds of the new winners taking the whole thing.
They shouted that after a Barack Obama victory and an Edwards follow-up, Hillary is dead in the water. The same was said about McCain from the Republican side after the Huckabee win. The shock waves of those claims reverberate in the minds of many voters.
Even the candidates themselves seem to be doing it. Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich, sensing a defeat in Iowa, preemptively called for his supporters to lend their caucus votes in Iowa to Obama.
The result of all these early premonitions is a series of bandwagon-jumping rarely seen outside the world of sports. Just as fans of a football team seem to all appear in a winning season, the winners of early primaries and caucuses seem to leap in popularity. The same is seen in reverse, as the losers take a sharp loss.
This mindset of "well, if they do it, I might as well" is unhealthy for a democratic voting process.
It causes candidates who could potentially be good for the country to get permanently lost in the blur of an early loss, essentially what we call a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we are drawing analogies from sports, would it be a wise decision to award the season championship during the first week of the season?
Of course not.
Things can change along the course of a few months. Look no further than Howard Dean's famous post-Iowa implosion during the election year of 2004. Dean went into Iowa as the predicted winner. After losing the state to John Kerry and his now infamous scream, his campaign took a sudden nosedive.
Also to be considered is that the candidate that might be the best choice for a state such as Iowa or New Hampshire might not be the best choice for Florida. While deciding your vote based strictly on what is best for the state is a selfish way to look at things, it does need to be considered.
This is why it is up to you, as responsible voters, to go with your convictions and ideals. Look into the candidates, and make a decision based on what you think is best for your state and your country.
Learn some politics. Research the voting records of candidates. Watch speeches and read transcripts. Do what you need to do.
But whatever you do, don't just vote for a candidate in the primary because the early states voted for them.
Besides, if Iowa and New Hampshire jumped off a bridge, would you?
Be the first to comment on this article!