Iowa was fifth in voting percentage in 2008.  I am proposing that the state with the highest percent of voters should have the first vote in the 2012 caucuses or primaries.  We were behind Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine and New Hampshire.

I don't understand why it should alway be Iowa and New Hampshire.  If a state wants to be first let them work for it .  Start with the highest percent of voters and work down to which state is 50th.


About the Author(s)

keith nichols

  • Keith Nichols - Iowa Economy Basher

    Keith, am I to assume that you want to further hurt Iowa’s economy by keeping Republicans from coming to our state to spend lots of money here?

    Give me a break.  We need all the help we can get.

    You are just trying to hurt Iowa.

    • he's entitled to his opinion

      I happen to dislike the caucus system, even though I enjoy going to my precinct caucus and of course I like Iowa getting all the attention. But it would be more fair to do away with caucuses for the purpose of presidential selection.

  • It does get money into the state

    Yes Will I will agree with you it is good for the economies of Iowa and New Hampshire.  But this is a national election.  I enjoy getting to see all the candidates.  But if we want to have the first vote.  We should have to earn it.  An increase in turnout generally helps Democrats.

  • I actually liked Yepsen's idea

    of having the first state to have a primary be the one that was the closest in the last election (smallest margin of vote, by percentage, between the two major candidates). I haven’t seen the final numbers, but that would mean Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana would go near the beginning of the process.

    The advantage is that the party would have a chance to build infrastructure from the precinct level up through all the counties in the swing states.