1. In the second paragraph, the author writes: “… Iowa … does indeed help shape the outcome of the nomination. Tim Pawlenty is gone due to Iowa, and Rick Perry may be out of the game by the time people read this also due to Iowa.” Tim Pawlenty was gone several months ago, because he was getting no support anywhere and could not raise the funds to campaign. Rick Perry is (or shortly will be) out, and Michelle Bachmann has “suspended” her campaign. But Iowa has nothing to do with the inability of these candidates to reach the nominating convention. Pick a state – any state, big, small, medium – to hold a primary, and some of the candidates are going to be winnowed from the field.

Perry weakened his candidacy when it became clear that he could not not speak coherently or remember his own proposals. Bachmann – an Iowa native from the same town as an infamous serial killer, not a famous movie star with a similar name as the killer – Bachmann, who was supposedly a “favorite daughter” of Iowa, finished last, perhaps because she could not get any facts right. And if the first primary were held in a state with a minority population served by this web site, Bachmann’s pronunciation of “chutzpah” (she used the same initial consonant sound that starts “chicken”) would not have helped her with the Yiddish-speakers. There is simply no reason to suggest – as the author does – that if the opening primary were a state more aligned with racial/ethnic mix of the US as a whole, Pawlenty, Bachmann and/or Perry would still viable candidates. And a tougher question is: Is there a state whose racial/ethnic mix matches that of the whole nation? The author does not tell us, and I do not pretend to know.

2. In the last paragraph, the author states that the current system gives Iowa and New Hampshire power over the rest of the US. Historically, Iowa’s caucus winners have rarely become president, or even a candidate, and New Hampshire’s primary winners are not necessarily assured of a nomination or election as president.

3. The author does not propose any alternative to the current system, let alone explain how a different system would result in different – or better, or more democratic – candidates or presidents. I believe there are some deficiencies in the present system, but if you want to know what they are, do not read this article.

If New York wants to be the first primary, there is nothing to stop it from doing so. Indeed, the reason the primaries have move up several months is states keep moving to the front of the line, so Iowa and New Hampshire move up even earlier.

In all fairness, having the initial primaries in small states allows a “dark horse” to establish credentials, and thereby attract the funds to campaign in the big states. If the big states were first, or there was a national primary, Romney would have an insurmountable advantage (whereas based on polls, several other candidates have managed to overtake him for at least part of the race).