FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Iowa and New Hampshire go along pretty much unnoticed most of the time, but every four years they get even. They are where the presidential first pitch is thrown out.
Some people argue that this is no way to pick a president, that the current system gives a few hundred thousand voters in these two early states way too much influence. At least one expert calls the system "foolish" and "outdated."
"The Columbus Dispatch" suggests Ohio would be a better starting place because it better represents the country demographically, economically and politically. Tell you what, when you fix your voting machines, we'll talk.
The McClatchy newspapers say Iowa is a foreign place to many Americans:
"Why should such a tiny state get such a big say in picking the president?... A state where the people are as white as the snow-covered landscape, devoid of the minorities who are changing the country's complexion. A place where people graduate from school in record proportion, and live long, healthy lives."
The article goes on to suggest that Iowa, which has the highest literacy rate in the nation, might be as good a place as any to start. It's small enough that candidates can meet people face-to-face. And, even though Iowa isn't representative of the rest of country, no other single state probably is either.
Here’s my question to you:
Are Iowa and New Hampshire the right places to start the presidential election process?
To see the Cafferty File video click here
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Jayne from New Hampshire writes:
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. I live in New Hampshire and we are pestered to death by pollsters, push pollers, leaflets, brochures, campaigns, fundraisers and news people. Sure, it's fun to see the candidates up close and personal and we take the job of primary voter very seriously, but I wouldn't mind sharing the experience. P.S. Be sure to invest in caller I.D.
Thomas from South Carolina writes:
I think the current primary system is completely broken. We should have all states vote on the same day. That way the outcome would be much less manufactured and wouldn't be influenced by just a couple states. These days, with so much national media and the internet, the candidates don't need to physically campaign everywhere anyway. Ron Paul didn't have to shake my hand to get my vote.
Matt from Bryant, Wisconsin writes:
I don't know if they are the two best states to hold the primaries in, but I am sure as hell happy that they aren't holding them here.
Bob from San Jose, California writes
Iowa is ideal! It's small enough so candidates must face you eye-to-eye. Iowans are genuine souls who care deeply about values and common sense. As a black man, I was proud to live there once and I can't wait to know what Iowans think tomorrow.
G. writes:
About 6% of registered voters participate in the Iowa caucuses. Those few people in a little white farming state, hardly representative of the U.S. as a whole, should not be able to make such an impact on the election process. We should dispense with tradition, especially that of caucusing, and Iowa should have to get in line and have a primary the way most other states do it.
Hugh from Vero Beach, Florida writes:
No. I believe they should start in Hawaii and Alaska. Put the candidates on the road early...really test their endurance, I say. Plus, they'll be in time zones where we wouldn't have to watch or hear them 24/7.