Why should Iowa and New Hampshire always go first?

PALM BEACH POST
By Gerald D. Skoning
Florida's decision to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 31 has started a game of leapfrog among states trying to assert their influence in picking the nominee and to draw millions of dollars in candidate spending.

The Iowa caucuses are set for January 3rd, and the New Hampshire primary for January 10th. What is it about those idiosyncratic states that qualifies them for such status? Why should they go first? Why not Florida?

I'm tired of hearing about what voters in Iowa and New Hampshire think about the candidates for president. Neither state is a good bellwether. Each is smaller, older, whiter and more rural, and unemployment in New Hampshire is 4.8 percent, almost half the national average. The system needs to change if we are to find candidates who are more satisfactory to the country at large. We should rotate the order of the presidential primaries each election cycle. In 2016, Iowa and New Hampshire should go last.

Advocates for Iowa and New Hampshire going first argue that it gives candidates an increasingly rare opportunity to engage in retail politics and generate some momentum if they are starting with less money or name recognition. But many other states (like Florida) could provide those same grass-roots handshaking opportunities and "town hall meetings." The Iowa-New Hampshire primacy seems to be a case of inertia: We've just always done it that way.

Of course, while the political stakes are huge, the financial stakes are considerable as well. Early primary states reap a windfall in the form of campaign spending and media buys. New Hampshire officials estimate that their first-in-the-nation primary will mean $264 million in economic benefits.

Other states (like Florida) ought to have a shot at that windfall, particularly in light of the struggling economy. Hence the decision to move up the Florida primary. But we should have a chance to go first without being penalized by convention delegates. We need a better, more equitable way to schedule state presidential primary elections.

Some have suggested having regional primaries and rotating the order every presidential election - Northeast, Southwest, Midwest and so on. That would be vastly more democratic and would distribute the economic benefits of early primaries more equitably. But to be fair to all 50 states, maybe we should have a national lottery to determine the order of state primaries.

It would be conducted like many state gambling lotteries, as a televised event, but on a larger, national stage - the Lincoln Memorial? - with coverage by all the major networks and cable news programs. A lottery system would be simple to execute and would avoid the escalating interstate competition Florida has kicked off, an absurd scramble that could result in presidential primaries being held before Thanksgiving of this year or even earlier.

In 2008, Florida moved up its primary and made a difference in the selection of John McCain, but was threatened with the loss of convention delegates. The largest swing state should not have to break the rules to have a voice.