of "where democracy actually works."

It's the opposite, really. Democracy works when everybody gets a fair chance to participate -- so the more active voters, the better.

Having read the whole article, it seems that the main reason Iowa carries so much weight is because it's one of the first primaries or caucuses. But it could hold a primary on the same date the caucus is now held and still be among the first.

because they want the status of "first primary in the nation" .

The media and campaign staffs have to eat and sleep somewhere.

I'm not too thrilled with Iowa ….He is only polling at 11% right now ...Iowa could end his campaign … But on a more serious note , .I don't understand why Iowa and NH have to be the first 2 states every cycle ….. I have been of that opinion for many years....Why not , for example, New Mexico and Rhode Island the next cycle and so forth and so on ? …..I think the process should start with 2 small states so candidates who don't have a lot of money have a chance to compete

Not to impugn the political chops of the good folks of Iowa and New Hampshire, but it doesn't seem fair that they always get to go first.

As you suggest, a reasonable solution would be to rotate states each presidential election cycle. Maybe even go further and group them by proximity. So, for instance, you could group Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio together and call it the "Great Lakes Primary" and that group would vote first on the same day in early 2024. Then in 2028, they are the last primary group to vote and the Florida/Georgia/NC/SC "Southeast Primary" gets to go first. You could balance it by population totals to even up the state count a bit, I guess. But, you get the general idea.

I don't know, something needs to be done with the current system, that's for sure.

are in no way representative of the real Democratic base. It's unfair that two small, predominately white states should shape the outcome of our nominating process.

...that don't remotely reflect our electorate has long been ridiculous.

In a democracy, California would have far, far more say in who gets elected President, Iowa a lot less.

In small states like Iowa and New Hampshire, you can do retail politics where there is actual face-to-face between the voters and candidates.

The two early states in general also take their responsibility very seriously and make an effort to see the various candidates around.

It's not an ideal situation and perhaps other states like South Carolina and Nevada could rotate, but I would hate for us to lose that personal contact. This coming from someone in a state where the race is generally over by the time they get to me, and we vote so reliably Democrat that it is just out of civic duty (and keeping those popular vote numbers high).