Why is nh primary important

Both parties were in for a surprise on election day. His victory convinced him to actively run for the presidency. The election also demonstrated what has become a truism—that pollsters and prognosticators had best be careful in their rush to make judgments. Underdogs have a history of connecting with New Hampshire voters, and several front runners have found that neglecting the Granite state can be costly.

Even sitting presidents have learned not to take New Hampshire for granted. The images below in this online exhibition are a sampling of our collection. We also invite you to enjoy these additional resources on the New Hampshire primary:. Cancel Send. Already a member?

Sign in. Underwritten in honor of James H. About Us. New Hampshire History Network. Thus, Yankee frugality and the cold New England climate contributed to the timing of the New Hampshire presidential primary, which has been the first primary in each presidential election cycle for one hundred years. From until , the New Hampshire primary consisted of ballots only for delegates to the party conventions.

Then, in , the state legislature passed a law specifying that in addition to the ballots for delegates there would also be ballots for the presidential candidates, with their names listed separately.

It was theoretically possible for a presidential candidate to win the beauty contest and still not win the most delegates, since prominent delegates, well-known state leaders in their own right, might attract more votes than other delegates supporting the candidate preferred by the voters.

Still, the beauty contest became the event to watch. In the overall national delegate-selection process, however, little had changed. The reason was that fewer than half the national delegates were chosen by primaries; most were appointed by party leaders in the states or selected in state conventions largely controlled by party elites as in Iowa. At the national party conventions, the delegates would mostly vote the way they were instructed by party leaders. From its very beginning as a state when it joined the union in , Iowa adopted the caucus and convention process for nominating candidates to political office.

That process is an extended one. It begins with precinct caucuses meetings throughout the state currently Iowa has over 2, precincts , where party members participate in discussions about issues and presidential candidates, and elect delegates to the county conventions. At the county conventions, a similar process occurs, resulting in delegates elected to attend the congressional district conventions. Depending on the political party, some of the presidential delegates are elected at the district conventions and some at the state convention.

The complete selection of presidential delegates is not finalized until late in the spring, and the results for the presidential candidates often differ considerably from what was indicated in the initial caucus meetings. Until , the national news media paid virtually no attention to the results of the early precinct meetings in Iowa. Jack Beatty , On Point news analyst. Megan Messerly , politics reporter for the Nevada Independent. Jill from Portland, Maine called and proposed an alternative to the current primary system.

Instead of one state gripping on the title of first-in-the-nation, she thinks the position should be shared. Why is it the same two states every year? I think it would be really interesting over the next 20 years or so to try rotating to different parts of the country. Or maybe mix it up: South and West, East—you know, whatever. An added bonus of a rotating system could be that voters feel more engaged when it comes to the general election.

A national primary, whereby all states determine their preference at once, should not be ruled out either. While this might make retail politics obsolete, that might be an inevitable trend in the era of social media anyway. State laws in New Hampshire and Iowa explicitly call for their primary and caucuses, respectively, to be the first in the nation.

But the Democratic Party, not the states, has the final say over its own nominating process. If the party decided it would not recognize the results from New Hampshire and Iowa — and then stuck to that pledge — it could break the tradition.

The party successfully prevented the states from jumping the line. With each passing election, the privileged place of Iowa and New Hampshire becomes harder to defend.