Primary reform.(presidential nominations)

Every four years, America goes to the polls to elect a president, which invariably leads to complaints about how we choose our nation's leader--a process that begins with the inordinate political and media attention given to the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses.

Last year was no different. Not long after the final votes were tallied, Democratic activists in both Michigan and a bloc of states west of the Mississippi River lobbied to move their states to the front of the primary process, to undermine the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Such reform is long overdue and worthy of serious consideration by both major parties.

Although there are positive aspects to voting early in Iowa and New Hampshire--the high turnout, the smaller electorates that afford a more personal style of "retail" politics--the two states are not the best barometers of national sentiment. They both lack diversity (both are predominantly white). Candidates far too often resort to pandering--farm, ethanol, and heating-oil subsidies--that is beneath the dignity of the office. As for the media, returning to the same two states every four years makes for lazy journalism.

Moreover, the two states are lousy at predicting the November winner; George W. Bush, in 2000, was the only nonincumbent to win the presidency and the Iowa caucuses, whereas his father, in 1988, was the only nonincumbent to win the New Hampshire primary and go on to the Oval Office.

How, then, do we fix the presidential nomination process? Try leading off with at least two states that represent the middle of the political spectrum as defined by the previous ...