About Iowa and New Hampshire "first in the nation"....

[suston96]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080101/D8TT6L7G0.html

Poll: Nation Tired of Iowa-NH First
Email this Story

Jan 1, 11:27 AM (ET)

By HOLLY RAMER

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - All eyes may be on Iowa and New Hampshire, but many of them are rolling.

Despite efforts to evict the two states from the front of the presidential calendar, both managed to hang on for another election cycle that culminates with the Iowa caucuses on Thursday and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. As a year of media attention reaches its crescendo, voters in other states are saying enough is enough.

According to a national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two parties nominations.

"They have way too much - WAY too much - say," said Kevin Thomas of Tacoma, Wash. "California's a big state and they don't have any say, and Iowa's not even half the size of California. It really makes me as a voter wonder what's going on."

Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the current system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.

"I think they should take turns, maybe take it to a small state like Rhode Island that doesn't have a whole lot of voting power," Thomas said.

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.

Gardner and other defenders of New Hampshire say the country - and the candidates - are well-served because the primary requires close contact with voters, not just a big advertising budget and name recognition.

"It gives the little guy a chance," said Gardner.

.....more.

Oh, "little guy" my butt. With instant media and blog attention there are no more "little guys". Just boring candidates with little to offer a national campaign.

We need a one day/weekend national primary, hopefully not more than 4 months before the general election.

[NC_Nurse]

1. May 6th for NC...

I have no voice. :(

[cali]

2. The last thing we need is a national primary. And yes, there's still the unknown

politician who has a chance in a small state. I'm with the guy that suggests rotating small states as first and then follow up with something akin to a national primary after three or four small states. A national primary would simply go to the person who raises the most bucks or who has the biggest personal fortune. Without comprehensive reform in the money area, a one day national primary is a giveaway to big bucks.

[suston96]

3. Selecting candidates for national offices demands national participation and not...

...sporadic state contests that are easily corrupted by monied media interests and now glamour glitzes.

The more widespread an election of any kind is, the more difficult it is to corrupt.

The past two national elections should serve as proof as to how easy it was to corrupt the electoral college scheme.

A national primary and a national popular vote. Direct elections by the people.

[zanne]

4. What do you expect other states to say?

Any state that is the first in the nation will be criticized for having too much influence. Especially if it isn't your state.

[PsN2Wind]

5. Says the lady from one of the states in question.

N/T

[zanne]

8. Exactly. One of the states taking criticism. nt

[zanne]

9. We can argue about the primaries, but even more importantly...

We should be having discussions about the electoral college. As long as we don't have a popular vote for president, we don't have a democracy.

[Eurobabe]

6. If the Dems lose, they won't have learned from

past elections. I say regional primaries or national primary, change the way it is done.

The system as it is SUCKS. And my Dad lives in New Hampshire, so no flames please.

Just tired of the same old same old. :eyes:

[Cameron27]

7. I'm tired of it too.

We need bigger demographics right at the start.

[DS1]

10. Iowa is nothing more than a desolate shithole

and it's :puke: tastic to even think it's worth a shred other than being useful for slicing up pigs and making bacon.