San Diego Union Tribune: Time to end Iowa, N.H. election dominance

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

It's broke. Fix it.

Time to end Iowa, N.H. election dominance

December 9, 2005

Traditions die hard, but quite a few deserve death. A perfect example is the tradition that dictates that Iowa must have the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary every presidential election year, making these small, unrepresentative states political kingmakers without parallel.

Meanwhile, California, the most populous state, has gone many decades without influencing who is nominated, because its primary comes long after Iowa and New Hampshire have started the winnowing process. This is absurd.

Thankfully, something may finally be done about it. Tomorrow, a Democratic Party commission will consider endorsing a plan that would allow for two to four caucuses in more diverse states between Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire's primary.

Predictably, this has inspired hyperventilating in New Hampshire. Granite Staters insist their ire stems not from their potential loss of power and economic benefits but because New Hampshire really and truly is the best place to kick off the presidential campaign since its small size allows candidates to interact one-on-one with voters. Thus, the theory holds, voters are able to reach more informed judgments than they could if the primary were in a much larger state, where the campaigns would be more slick, packaged, TV-centric affairs. This theory is so full of holes it could find work as a shower nozzle. If retail political skills are so crucial to vetting would-be presidents, then why give only the residents of the same two states the privilege of evaluating those skills? Why not alternate the leadoff role among small states with populations whose demographics more closely reflect the nation than lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire? Nevada, Delaware and Missouri come to mind.

(snip)

So while we salute Democrats for at least considering some changes, the most logical reform remains a comprehensive overhaul that would set up regional primaries whose order would be rotated every four years. Every voter should periodically get to have an enhanced say on presidential nominees – not just accept the dictates from the lucky voters in the few states which traditionally get to anoint the winners.

M(snip)


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051209/news_lz1ed9top.html