The first presidential primary was held Thursday night in Iowa.

The second primary will be held Tuesday in New Hampshire.

This got us thinking.

Why do those two states get to shape the presidential race??

The combined states population is less than 2% of the US population.

Neither state is hardly representative of the composition of the United States.

Quite the opposite.

As indicated from the 2006 census, Iowa has less than 6 times less African Americans as found in the overall population

3 times less Asians, and 5 times less Hispanics.

New Hampshire Has 12 times less African Americans as the general population more than 2 times less Asians and 7 1/2 times less Hispanics

 

    

 

 

In the general election, the president will is not determined by the candidate that receives the most votes.

 

In the United States, the President is elected by electoral votes.

 

The purpose of this system was to give states with greater populations a larger voice and those with smaller populations a lesser voice, in the general election.

 

Whether the electoral voting system is wise or fair is a question for another day.

 

This is the system we have, and a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to be elected.

 

Iowa has 7 electoral votes. New Hampshire has 4.

 

There are a total of 538 votes available. So in percentage terms, in the general election, Iowa only has 1 1/2 % of the total electoral votes and New Hampshire, just over 1%.

 

Yet both of these states having the first two primaries, have a substantial influence on shaping who is nominated.

 

Need proof.

 

Mitt Romney spent 15 million dollars in Iowa. At that rate, based on population, Mr. Romney would need to spend One and a Half BILLION dollars in the primaries alone, to give the same weight to all 50 states.

 

After the Iowa caucuses candidates have dropped out and others have been anointed as clear front runners.

 

This again based on the votes of 1% of the US population, which is highly not representative of the general population.

 

How this needs to be fixed

 

Why not have the primary held in the same fashion as the general election?

 

Why not have a primary day where everyone in each state votes on the same day for the person in their party they want to be nominated?

 

In the general election all the news networks have been criticized for predicting election results before polls on the west coast close, the thought being is that people on the west coast may not vote or change their vote based on the results in the east.

 

In the primary season, why is not the same true?

 

Certainly there are citizens in states holding primaries later in the season, which will not get a chance to vote for the candidate of their choice, since many will drop out along the way.

 

Some states, like Florida, seeing this problem have tried to fix it by moving their primary dates up to allow their citizens to have access to the full slate of candidates and attempt to even the timing of the primaries.

 

Their reward has been met by both parties with punishment not praise

 

Each state that has moved up their primary has been stripped of delegates to their party’s national convention, thereby discouraging other states from moving up their date, leaving their citizen’s with a reduced voice in the nomination process.

Why Iowa and New Hampshire first??

That is the way it always has been.

The rules created in the days before the existence of 10 cable news networks broadcasting 24 hour coverage of evey move of every major candidate.

The rules created before debates were televised to every home in America.

The rules created for another day and time.

I know this has nothing to do with domains.

 

But we have other extremely important problems that have to be addressed.

 

Now, what are we going to do about Britney???