Staff Edit: The importance of Iowa

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

That was the message from Gov. Mitt Romney in Iowa last week as he commented on proposals to change the order of primaries for presidential elections. As it stands, the first states to pass judgment on presidential candidates are Iowa and New Hampshire -- not states you'd normally think of as major power players in national politics.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the country saw the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary for what they are: an opportunity for a small number of voters in two relatively rural states to say who they'd like to see in the White House. The problem is that we pay a disproportionate amount of attention to the results in these two states. When a candidate fares well in Iowa -- as John Kerry did in 2004 -- he becomes the most high-profile politician in the race. At future campaign stops, he draws the most camera crews, and consequently has the greatest opportunity to form an impression on the people following the election around the country. Moreover, candidates from these two states and their respective regions have an obvious hometown advantage in the primaries, much to the detriment of candidates from, say, California or Florida.

Why do we put so much responsibility on Iowa and New Hampshire? Because that's how it's traditionally been done. But traditions aren't always a good thing. Romney is wrong about keeping the primaries as they are, and it's time that the Democrats and Republicans made an effort to create a more equitable and sensible primary season

One possibility is to have another state primary between Iowa and New Hampshire, but this wouldn't really solve the problem. Iowa would still wield disproportionate influence, and instead of New Hampshire, some other state would do the same.

What's needed is a rotating system in which a group of five states, not just any one, are the first to vote. Ideally, they would be from all over the country, but they could also be concentrated in a particular region like the Southwest. And instead of the same states voting every four years, they would rotate on a regular basis.

With the exception of the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, who enjoy all the attention they get, it's in the best interests of everyone involved to diversify our primaries. Only then will we have candidates who reflect the true interests of the American people, not just of two states. Only then will we be choosing candidates in a manner that's both logical and fair.