Why can't other states be first?

Why do 48 states allow Iowa and New Hampshire to always have the first say in presidential elections? It’s blatantly unfair. The Constitution doesn’t give those two states a higher status.

Candidates spend months chatting with and making promises to Iowa and New Hampshire voters and businesses. Why shouldn’t the citizens and businesses of Washington or Connecticut occasionally get the same amount of attention?

New Hampshire and Iowa set the tone for the rest of the race. Many candidates drop out if they don’t do well in those two states. This happens again and again, every four years. Why can’t Maryland or Wisconsin ever wield similar make-or-break powers?

If Americans want two states with smaller populations to always vote first, then why not let Delaware and Montana go first in 2020? How about Kansas and Maine in 2024? Virginia and Wyoming in 2028? Or we could have rotating regional primaries, perhaps with the Northeast voting first in 2020, the Northwest voting first in 2024, etc.

Anything is better than continually allowing the same two states to have a first-in-the-nation monopoly. If the national political parties don’t change the process, then Congress should step in and make the system fair.

This story was originally published January 29, 2016 at 1:25 PM with the headline "Why can't other states be first?."