Here we go again. We will hear more and more about the New Hampshire Primary of 2012 as the weeks are peeled off the calendar and the new year approaches. I don’t get it. Why should New Hampshire be even one day before Massachusetts in the schedule of caucuses and primaries? I don’t understand how political leaders in Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts take this lying down. To have a small state with the demographics and social peculiarities of New Hampshire wielding so much political influence baffles me. I don’t want to hear justifications like the opportunity for retail politics in a small state. New Hampshire is wildly unrepresenative of the US population as a whole. And it is just absurd to have this repeated line-up of Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina time after time. Whomever is in charge of this electoral system has no imagination or no guts. The major party leaders accept this hijacking of the process. Shouldn’t a big state like Ohio lead off or a regional cluster like the Northwest or Northeast or Southeast rotate in sequence every four years?
I’ve been reading the early articles on political websites or national magazines and major papers, all mentioning the visits of this or that candidate to New Hampshire. I just can’t believe Massachusetts is getting its lunch eaten again by New Hampshire. What does a it take, a vote of the legislature to schedule the Massachusetts primary one week before the New Hampshire date—just to make a point? I don’t care if the Mass. primary gets moved to October 2011 if that’s what it takes to send New Hampshire a message. The Granite State is not entitled to be the first primary test. That’s not how democracy works.