All states operate under the same rules and hold their primaries on the same day. This California resident is goddamn sick of the tail wagging the dog.

The days of the usefullness of Iowa and New Hampshire being bellweathers of the country to "to give underdogs a chance to break through with low-cost campaigning "

In the age of the internet, decline of independent "real" newspapers, increase in huge companies being the disseminators of what's "news"; Iowa and New Hampshire are superfluous. In fact, the whole primary system is out-of-date and needs to be overhauled.

What exactly is wrong with a national primary (we currently will have that this election cycle anyway.) Just have the primary in October and one month later have the real election. The electorates attention span is that of MTV 5 seconds, so why try to live with a 2 year primary season that we currently have? In fact, if the Democratic Party were smart, they would do this next time. Let the Republicans continue with the old expensive way and let the Dems have a National primary much later. They would need less funds to gain the attention of those corporate "news" providers because there would be no choice. The smearing of the prospective candidates by the other party and the fair-and-balanced-news-crews would be rendered worthless until the end when the campaining really started.

This whole essay is "Please-keep-the-system-I've-known-for-the-past-27-years-intact-because-I'm-a-lazy-belt-way-pundit-and-I-don't-want-to-learn-anything-new-and-want-to-repeat-what-I-hear-without-doing-any-research"

And New Hampshire should have its primary completely taken away. Yes, it's cute that they always have the first one, the same way that it was cute that Harold Stassen and Pat Paulsen ran for President every year. But the time for the joke is over. Find some kind of unique foodstuff or something else to distinguish the state. New Hampshire, get a freaking life.

That is brilliant. I hope Howard Dean reads your comment.

A national primary would be made to order for a lazy reporter. There would be no need to travel to inconvenient places like Sioux City, Iowa, and Littleton, NH. The only thing needed by a reporter would be a television set, since the campaign would consist of nothing other than TV ads and ersatz appearances with voters. I value the benefits of candidates being forced to take questions from voters (and reporters) on a regular basis in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. With a national primary, all America (including California) becomes flyover territory.

I generally enjoy Walter Shapiro's articles and analysis, but this whole "Keep New Hampshire First!" meme that seems to be fairly common with political reporters leaves me cold. It's patently absurd that a state as small (41st in population) and homogeneous (98% White) as New Hampshire should have such an inordinate influence on the primaries for 88 years. Nostalgia notwithstanding, it's ridiculous. And that one official in a tiny state has such a huge influence over the primary season due to a state law is absolutely insane.

I am not utterly convinced that a national primary would be the disaster the pundits say it is. The vast number of Americans already have zero chance to meet the candidates prior to all of them but the two "winners" dropping out. In California (my former home) and Texas (where I reside currently), the primary is a joke, merely an exercise in voting "Me Too!" for the Anointed One. But let's say that a national primary would be the mess it's portrayed as. There's a simple solution:

Take turns.

Yes, that's right: New Hampshire and Iowa have had their turn for years. How about someone else getting a damn chance? Does anyone think that Walter Mondale would have been the candidate in '84 if, say, California had had the first primary? Or Michael Dukakis if Texas had been first? Please. The primaries could be rotated, starting with a state (here's a thought!) more representative of the country than New Hampshire or Iowa. How about Louisiana? (That would shake things up!) Or Oklahoma? Heck, even North Dakota would make for a change of pace. (Or, heaven forbid, California or Texas.)

In any event, all this breast-beating and rationalization about why New Hampshire and Iowa have to be first is silly. High time someone else had a chance (no matter what my Uncle John in Derry may say).

Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether an article on politics is opinion or satire. Maybe all stories about our present primary system should be classified under these dual categories. The author assures us he has a serious purpose here, but really people, is this any way to run a democracy? In a modern, first world country?

I am with those who urge that the first in line position rotate.

Yes, having New Hampshire first means retail politics. Having Hawaii or Rhode Island first would mean the same thing.

In any case, I don't think that retail politics is the highest good. Even more than retail politics, having New Hampshire first means that the candidates have to be appealing to people in New Hampshire. I understand that NH is changing, but in the past that meant that candidates had to be relatively conservative and overly concerned with rural issues.

We already have the electoral college making sure that rural issues are disproportionately important. We don't need a rural state imposing its values even more strongly.

I am much more interested in a scheme that puts a state that is more representative of the US first. That means allowing people who live in cities influence the election in terms appropriate to their representation in the country.

It is absurd that the citizens of the most populous states have very little to say about who the candidates should be. If retail politics is the goal, have a lottery for the first state to have its primary and enforce a seven or ten day waiting period for the next primary. Even if the first state is California, I guarantee that the candidates will spend all their time there. Ads will of course be more important, but the candidates will spend plenty of time talking to individuals, just as they do now.