Pushin' Primaries in Iowa and NH

The Associated Press review voter frustrations over the influence of New Hampshire and Iowa in the presidential primaries. The background on the issue is that these two states hold their primaries before all the other states, and candidates who perform badly often drop out before even appearing on another ballot.

Both states have been criticized as unrepresentative of the country given their size and lack of racial diversity. Iowa — population 3 million — is 95 percent white; New Hampshire — population 1.3 million — is 96 percent white. Democrats tried to inject more diversity into the process by adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina, but Iowa and New Hampshire moved even earlier.

The system became so scrambled last year that New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner was prepared to move the primary into December to keep ahead of other states that scheduled their own early primaries and caucuses. If anything, the front-loaded calendar made Iowa and New Hampshire more important.

Put your game theory to work now: 1) Use the prisoners' dilemma to explain why a simultaneous game would lead to all states converging to a single point in time further from the general presidential election; 2) Using a sequential game, explain why the New Hampshire SOS Bill Gardner's (credible) threat to continue to move earlier may prevent this convergence outcome. For extra credit, think about the economic benefits of hosting the initial primaries that Iowa and New Hampshire have capitalized into their tax revenues and their constituents' economic profit make their threat to move earlier so credible.

Note that the latter part of the article discusses the argument that New Hampshire and Iowa more closely examine the candidates, weeding out the candidates without enough "substance." How does the median voter model undermine this service?