Jonathan Ahl reports that his station, WCBU, is going to participate in the Primary Place program being offered though New Hampshire Public Radio. Essentially, it lets ordinary folks post questions and comments about the upcoming presidential race, which the good people of Exeter, NH, can then bring to the attention of the candidates that pay sooooooo much attention to that tiny state (while virtually ignoring larger states with more voters, like, say, ILLINOIS). It’s the next best thing to having a primary that actually matters.
Tags: Citizen Journalism, illinois, jonathan ahl, journalism, President, public radio, radio, WCBU
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
The need for a tiny state like New Hampshire to have such an oversized role in picking a president can only be justified if one believes that anyone should have a chance of becoming president. NH has some unique characteristics that make it suitable for such a role. It is small enough in size that you can easily cover the entire state by car. It has a small enough population that everyone can get a chance to see you in person. It has no large city in an adjacent state to influence to process. And, of critical importance, there is no dominant media outlet in the state. No television station, no radio outlet and no newspaper influences more than its surorunding community. This means that no candidate can come to the state with a lot of money and buy exposure. We call it “retail politics”. Every candidates has to come to every little town and make his or her case. G W Bush didn’t do this in 2000 and got killed by McCain who did. So before you complain about the New Hampshire primary, tell who you thnink should get a chance for our top political post.
Yes, New Hampshire is a tiny state. The city of Chicago has more than twice the population of the entire state of New Hampshire. Unfortunately the primary process has become very expensive for all the candidates. Maybe it is time for public finance of elections so each primary has equal value and candidates do not drop out of the race after New Hampshire and Iowa due to lack of money. It may also be time to limit the primary season.
Larger states, like, say, Illinois may want to look at a solution rather than belittling a state that takes primaries very seriously. The people of New Hampshire ignore the polls, take the time to go out and meet the candidates and cast their votes. I wish every state had the same opportunity.
Across the nation, there seems to be dissatisfaction with the Primary process. Some people see the latest race by states to move up their primaries as a reason to scrape the current process. In Congress there is discussion for Federal intervention into the scheduling of primaries by mandating a specific rotating order each election cycle. Pat’s comments cite campaign finacing as the problem and public (taxpayer) funding as the solution.
The truth is, no system will ever be perfect. The trick is to understand the current system and then find the solutions that fit the “core” problem, not the syptoms.
We must all remember that the primary system is a weeding out process which is supposed to be conducted by informed voters.
Many states have moved up their primaries stating that they want to insure their vote counts. Yet, reviewing their public debates on the issue, you see that their concern is based more upon gaining media attention for their state and business revenue from candidates running ads than informing voters.
Pat’s idea of public funding would only encourage every crackpot to join in the process and further complicate the choice by the voters. Look at California where old movie and porn stars get on the ballot each seasons just for publicity sake.
The real issue is voter apathy. Yet here in New Hampshire, for close to a century the citizens have had the opportunity, and the responsibility of choosing a candidate in the first in the nation primary. As a result, a culture of responsibility and civic duty has evolved and which has servesd the nation well. Average citizens, not special interests groups, command a direct response from each candidate. The candidate answers are then spread across the nation for all to judge.
The proposal in Congress to rotate the primaries may sound good, but there a negative aspects. Would the citizens in the new first in the nation primaries take there responsibility as seriously? If a large state was first, would the winner be chosen by who had the most money for TV and radio ads?
Maybe the solution is not to envy New Hampshires role, but to follow New Hampshires example. Maybe a greater emphasis on civics in our schools and stressing the duty of each citizen to be infromed and vote is an answer. Maybe returning to the days when the primaries across the nation were spread out, allowing and requiring all candidates to campaign in each and every state for the votes of its citizens is the answer. Maybe this would bring the process back into line, where the weeding out process is steady, logical and thoughtfull. While we in New Hampshire take the first vote, remember, its the last vote that counts the most.