If you’ve been listening to talk radio or watching TV, then you know it’s presidential primary season. Recently, there was a bunch of hoopla over Iowa and New Hampshire since they hold the first caucus and primary in the nation.

As these events unfold, presidential campaigns go all in on one or both of the states because they apparently make or break presidential hopefuls.

There lies a whole variety of problems, but perhaps most important is how the current primary system undermines federalism.

The main notion behind federalism is that no part of the country should have a massive amount of power over the rest. This is a good idea, especially in a country as large as America. It helps level the playing field between the various states.

However, federalism can end up being rather messy. After all, it’s a system built on the assumption that a single country is large enough to have different regions with competing interests. And with competition comes the need to gain influence and power.

Thus, the primaries.

Iowa and New Hampshire go first because its literally “the law” of Iowa and New Hampshire that they go first. It’s also a way to gain influence.

By going first, these small states manage to give candidates momentum and set the tone of the presidential election.

Iowa and New Hampshire gain influence on the national stage. The interests of these states and their citizens start to matter more because they play a larger role than other states in choosing the president; not unlike Ohio and Florida in the general election due to the Electoral College.

Is this really fair? No, but the reasoning can’t really be argued with. States with small populations and mostly powerless congressional delegations need a way to gain influence and ensure that they’re heard.

Going early in the presidential primaries is a way to do that, even if in the process they end up making other states, big and small, matter less. Which they end up doing.

And the parties are nothing but supportive of this practice. States that try to hold earlier primaries are punished, and candidates gamble their whole campaign on these early states, even as Iowa and New Hampshire increasingly become worse and worse at picking the next president.

So in the end, two extremely small states play at being important while the rest of the states have their influence and voices largely overlooked.

Thus I say the current primary system should be done away with in favor of a single nationwide primary or larger, more regional primaries. This would help to level the playing field, or at least ensure that single states don’t have undo influence in our federation.