Forty-seven isn't as elegant as 50. But some states frankly don't deserve their star on the American flag.
Alaska, bastion of corruption, has to go. When a state's entire federal delegation is rocked by scandal, joining the Arab example of wedding oil wealth with nepotism, it's time to auction off the whole territory.
Hawaii's stake is also tenuous - 2,390 miles off the coast is a stretch even manifest destiny can't make with a straight face. D.C., with an economy bigger than 16 states and a population larger than Wyoming, deserves to take its place.
But Iowa and New Hampshire would get my first one-way tickets to exile. Politics can bring out the worst in people, a truism no less accurate for states. Iowa and New Hampshire, of course, claim the first two spots in the quadrennial presidential nomination process. In this gift basket of privilege, these two states find bottomless media coverage, the power and prestige of picking leaders of the free world, pandering candidates (literally) moving into town and millions of dollars splurged on everything from television advertisements to delivery pizza.
What makes these two states - unrepresentative in race, age and industry - deserving? State law, for one. In a pique of vanity, Iowa and New Hampshire granted themselves the privilege to decide who goes first and declared it must be them.
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., proving just how pathetic this whole process has become, one-ups such logic: "Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary." Apparently, Moses actually said, "Let my people go ... to caucus in Iowa."
Regular voters in these states, though, manage to cloak their narcissism in a fa?ade of logic. They point to their determined civic engagement, hounding candidates on the nuances of ethanol subsidies and health care plans. But who wouldn't pause to think up a policy question the umpteenth time Joe Biden prances through your kitchen?
Actually, most Hawkeyes and Granite Staters aren't so civic-minded. Only a third of New Hampshire voters have attended a campaign event, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll. A third of likely voters in Iowa admit they are not even paying close attention. In fact, the turnout rates in these states are embarrassing. In 2004, less than 30 percent of New Hampshire voters bothered to drive to the polls. Pathetic, but it swamped the 5.7 percent of Iowans who made it to caucus night. Though I doubt other states would do much better, these numbers are hardly an argument for maintaining the status quo.
Particularly infuriating, New Hampshire voters seemingly just want to be the first to rubberstamp whatever Iowa decides for them. After feting candidates for two years, polls find New Hampshire voters waiting for Iowa's results to make up their minds. "If they see you do well in Iowa they'll vote for you,'" said Dick Bouley while managing a 1984 primary campaign. "They don't want to throw away their vote." As if outsourcing your vote to strangers halfway across the country isn't a waste.
Similarly, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire squander too much time trying to gauge a candidate's electability - that is, parsing the whims of anonymous swing voters in pockets of Ohio, Florida and New Mexico. Barack Obama and John Edwards earn voters' trust and represent them on the issues, according to the CBS/Times survey, but the same voters predict outsiders will prefer Hillary Clinton.
What is apparently forgotten is that those voters will hold primaries, too, and are free to pick whoever fires them up - no need for Iowans to guess. Two cycles in a row, Iowa Democrats have handed us stiff and aloof bores. This time, give us someone we can believe in. Better yet, take a timeout and let someone else at the front of the line.
Jacob Shelly is a junior in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
