If nothing else, the recent election-night fiasco in Iowa should drive a stake in the heart of whats become known as the All-Important Iowa Caucus. And not just because of Democrats inability to produce timely results. This issue goes way beyond an app failure.

The parties have allowed this small, non-representative state to have far too much electoral weight for far too long. By the same token, New Hampshires oversized role in the nominations process also needs to be scrapped.

In the last 40 years, only Bill Clinton has bucked tradition by getting the nomination without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire. Why do these two states deserve to always winnow the field?

New Hampshire has voted first for 100 years because the first primary was staged there in 1920. Then Jimmy Carter discovered, in 1976, that Iowa had a caucus before New Hampshire and upstaged other candidates by organizing there and gaining media attention.

Because these states have always been first and have taken their job seriously is not good enough reason for the parties to continue to defend this tradition.

Neither state reflects the diversity of the nation. Iowa is a small, rural state, at least 90% white. On the Republican side, Iowans have tended in the past to reward religious or social conservatives. New Hampshire is 93% white, older, better educated, more progressive than other states. New Hampshires population is 1.3 million (think Dallas), and its largest city is 100,000.

Democratic candidates who reflected a more racially or ethnically diverse field and more populous states Kamala Harris (California), Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Julin Castro (Texas) all dropped out of the race before Iowa and New Hampshire.

Then theres the messiness of the Iowa process. Its complicated, as the first in a four-step convention process that ultimately chooses national convention delegates.

This year Iowa became even more complicated when party officials wanted additional data reported.

Each precinct was asked to tabulate not just the traditional share of delegates won but also the first choice of those attending (which would reflect votes for candidates who didnt reach viability and therefore didnt get delegates). That actually muddies the question of who won, because if a candidate doesnt get 15% in the precinct, his or her voters must go with a second choice or uncommitted.

Tabulation, done by the party, not the state, has often been tricky. In the 2012 Republican caucus, Mitt Romney was initially declared the winner. Two weeks later, it was changed to Rick Santorum. And the candidate who finished third on caucus night, Ron Paul, eventually controlled the national convention delegation.

Why not just have a primary? Let people vote. Then apportion delegates according to that vote.

Every state can determine by law when to have its primary or caucus. But the parties set the rules that produce the nominating conventions. They can establish calendar rules and deny seats at the national convention to states that dont comply. And candidates can refuse to campaign in those states.

With recent years has come incremental change. South Carolina and Nevada were allowed to go after Iowa and New Hampshire to insert more diverse states earlier in the process, before the floodgates of Super Tuesday. This year, that will be 14 states voting on March 3, including Texas and California.

More wholesale changes have been considered in recent years. Some ideas include rotating early primaries among states that are more representative according to race, age, education and income. Or the country could be divided into a few sections, with the sections rotating in presidential years.

A one-day national primary has failed to gain support because advocates of the current system tout the retail politics of the two smaller states, and say a one-day national primary would reward big spenders. But a rotating system could still allow for some face-to-face between candidates and voters, as well as a fairer winnowing process.

What rearranging the calendar would do is eliminate the media hype of Iowa and New Hampshire. George H.W. Bush recognized it when he won Iowa in 1980. As he said, its all about creating Big Mo, i.e. big momentum.

Iowa and New Hampshire, of course, will fight any change. Millions are spent by candidate organizations and the media, chasing candidates from town halls to diners. TV has made a production night out of events like caucus night in Iowa, which backfired when there were no results to announce just wasted air time and debatable Big Mo.

The people in other states deserve the right to have more say in the process, but they will have to demand it of their elected officials and party leaders. Simply said, its time to rethink the attention given to these two small states and their impact on the rest of the nation.

Carolyn Barta is a retired journalism professor at Southern Methodist University and former political writer for The Dallas Morning News.

Go here to read the rest:

Iowa and New Hampshire have no business leading the nomination process - The Dallas Morning News