Iowa and New Hampshire both take great pride in their status as the first states in the nation for selecting presidential nominees — Iowa through its caucuses and New Hampshire through its primary. That status is now in deep jeopardy in the Democratic Party, which moved a step closer this month to the biggest reshuffling of its primary schedule since the 1970s.

The new set-up would place South Carolina first, with its primary election taking place on Feb. 3, 2024. New Hampshire would follow on Feb. 6, but joined by Nevada. Georgia would then take place on Feb. 13, and Michigan on the 27th would round out the early contests.

The new schedule certainly may involve political reward. In 2020, South Carolina’s primary gave Joe Biden the win that saved his candidacy. It also may be meant to punish Iowa for the very public debacle that took place in its Democratic caucus last time.

Even if these low factors contributed to or even dominated the decision, the new schedule could improve the Democratic Party’s nominating process. The hard Left’s stronghold on the party needs to be mitigated. Giving states such as South Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada more influence might heighten the chances that the party’s future presidential candidates are more representative of its voters and better ready to govern the nation as a whole.

To see this possibility, we need to understand that our Constitution privileges binary choices in elections. It does so, especially through the Electoral College , which requires a winning presidential candidate to garner an absolute majority of electoral votes instead of a mere plurality. Americans are an independent-minded and diverse lot, meaning no homogeneous majority naturally exists. Instead, a true majority must be formed through coalitions that combine voters distinguished by policy preferences, region, ethnicity, religion, and other factors. Though not mentioned in the Constitution, political parties consistently have served the role of organizing lasting coalitions of voters that seek to garner a majority of votes and, thereby, the right to govern.

One genius element of our constitutional system is that broad-based coalitions needed to get clear majorities tend to be more moderate politically. This moderation keeps our politics from veering into sectarian and extreme choices that threaten stability and liberty. So it should be in the Democratic Party.

The current Democratic coalition is made up of a number of groups, including whites with college degrees, urbanites, African-Americans, union members, and Hispanic or Latino voters. The major part of these groups do not completely agree on all social or economic policies, usually landing more or less to the Left of the political spectrum. In a healthy party, they can and should moderate each other to form a party somewhat near the values of the average American.

However, that has not been the story. Especially over the last 15 years, the Democratic Party has less and less represented the middle of the Democratic coalition, much less America in general. Instead, their policies, rhetoric, and tactics have increasingly resembled one subset of that coalition, namely the most stridently progressive part that is largely white, upper-class, highly educated, and secular. This increased resemblance has resulted in a massive, fast, leftward lurch in the party’s public face.

The results have not been good: Economic flirtation with socialism and cultural extremism on abortion, secularism, and transgenderism have become litmus tests for the party as a whole, ignoring vital, moderating views from other parts of the coalition.

The old primary schedule contributed to this extremist problem by frontloading states whose Democratic voters tended to be in the white, educated, progressive camp. Candidates were forced to placate that element of the electorate at the expense of the rest of Democratic voters. The new map would seem to enhance the power of other, often less hard-Left groups in the party, namely African-Americans (South Carolina and Georgia), Hispanics or Latinos (Nevada), and union members (Michigan). White progressives would still be part of this early conversation, especially in New Hampshire. But their power hopefully would be diminished.

If the new schedule would slow down, even reverse, the Democratic Party’s run to the extreme Left, it would be worth it. The progressive grip is damaging the country as well as the party. Democratic voters deserve better than what the current primary process has given them. And so does the rest of the country.

Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.