Editorial: The real primary race

Friday, Aug. 10, 2007 | 7:18 a.m.

T he most interesting and important political race in the nation right now should be the presidential primaries. Unfortunately, the candidates have been upstaged by the states' scramble to become one of the first in the nation to hold a primary.

The big states feel they have been given short shrift in the presidential primaries because smaller states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, which historically have gone first and second respectively, have a disproportionately large effect on the nomination.

The states are now playing a game of electoral leapfrog.

On Thursday South Carolina's Republicans, trying to hold on as the first in the South to vote, moved their primary to Jan. 19 because Florida had moved its primary ahead of South Carolina's. That will cause a change in Iowa, which had set its caucus on Jan. 14. Iowa law requires it to hold its contest eight days before anyone else.

New Hampshire's state law says it must have the first primary and plans to hopscotch ahead of South Carolina and right behind Iowa.

The Democratic Party had tried to solve all of this infighting among the states with a sensible and fairer primary and caucus schedule. It also added more diversity among the regions and put some states to the forefront that better represented the geographic and ethnic diversity of the party and the nation. Nevada benefited from the plan, being named second in the nation, but that is now in doubt, given all the shifting.

The Democrats' plan to change a bad system has been short-circuited by the states' line jumping, and that could lead to a bigger problem: The nomination could be decided before the groundhog ever gets a chance to look for a shadow. As the primary season becomes front-loaded, the states that are trying to get to the head of the line will be lost in the shuffle as candidates jet from one state to the next. Also, voters will have less of a chance to see and interact with candidates, and that is a real shame.