THE PLANK DECEMBER 11, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Via Greg Mankiw, Brian Knight and Nathan Schiff of Brown University find that...voters in early primary states are disproportionately influential!
Two
Brown University economists have, for the first time, quantified the substantial
effects of winning early in the race for the presidential nomination. In a
National Bureau of Economic Research working
paper, Brian Knight and graduate student Nathan Schiff demonstrate that voters
in early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire have up to 20 times the
influence of voters in later states in the selection of candidates.
Not being an economist, I'm in no position to question their result, but my first instinct is that this figure seems way too low. In 2004, at least, given that all the major candidates besides John Kerry dropped out after Super Tuesday, didn't all the subsequent states have essentially no influence on the process? Shouldn't the number be a little closer to, you know, infinity?
--Josh PatashnikÂ
3 comments
Being an economist who has not read the paper, I'm in no position to question their result either, but I can say that as a DC resident that the ratio of Iowans' influence as voters to mine is more like... infinity.
- stgla
December 11, 2007 at 3:13pm
"Shouldn't the number be a little closer to, you know, infinity?"
Maybe the study looked back past, you know, 2004. But you know what? I'm sure you, you know, guessed that already.
- oakcliff
December 11, 2007 at 8:57pm
My recollection might be flawed, but I seem to recall that Aristotle claimed the virtuous should carry disproportionate influence in a polity. I'm not sure, but I guess being able to tolerate living in a state as boring as Iowa must count as some sort of virtue.
- guyminuslife
December 12, 2007 at 1:47am