Mark's Commentary & Analysis

Why Iowa and New Hampshire?

Mark Plotkin, WTOP Radio

It looks increasingly like the selection of candidates for President will be determined by two states that in no way are representative of the United States.

The two states are, as we all know, Iowa and New Hampshire.

I have nothing personally against either, but as many have said, is this a way to pick a president?

The idea that the promoters who live in these states make is that this represents the very best in retail politics.

Retail politics translates into you get to meet the candidate close up and measure him up and in that brief interpersonal exchange you will wisely make a decision.

I'm all for handshakes and personal contact, but is that the whole basis for value of determining the right choice.

Also, if you combine how many people actually vote you get a miniscule number.

For instance, just over 120,000 Democrats participated in the the Iowa Caucus four years ago.

In terms of the Democrats, the rules in the caucus are so elaborate and complicated in tallying up the votes you have to have a PhD in mathematics.

At least Republicans abide by a much clearer and rational method. The candidate who produces the most followers wins. That's simple and clean.

New Hampshire's reason is it just likes to be the first primary.

It's been that way so it should continue that way!

One man, Bill Gardner, the New Hampshire Secretary of State, determines the date and the candidates like lemmings go along.

What there should be is a series of four regional primaries where an equal number of states are grouped together. A combination of small, big, and medium size. They should be demographically, somewhat representative, so that all types of votes are included and then have a real role in the nomination process.

Now, I know that the candidates will never say anything bad in the states that are competing for votes.

But isn't it up to the citizens of the nation to play a role?

The whole thing should not be over by Jan. 8!

Maybe the voters will surprise me and not let two states determine this most important decision.

I would love the voters not to go along with the conventional behavior.

That unfortunately is whoever wins the first two contests gets such momentum that the rest of the country is just relegated to spectators.

The political conventions just become coronations for a turning point event that occurred seven or eight months ago.

A real political convention that took more than one ballot is not a disgrace.

It would not divide the parties. It would encourage more interest and more knowledge about who the eventual nominee is.

In summary, the present system is rotten. It definitely needs to be changed and the national parties -- both Republican and Democratic -- need to actually determine a more rational and truly representative way. Tinkering at the edges will not shake up the system.

Stop conceding to Iowa and New Hampshire

Start this process of genuine reform so that 2012 is not just a repeat of every four years' bad system.

Picture This