By Bennet Kelley

Just as winter gives way to spring, the mid-term election season gives way to pilgrimages to New Hampshire by presidential hopefuls. The seasonal change also brings renewed questions about the Granite State’s coveted role as the nation’s first presidential primary and jockeying among states for an early primary spot in order to avoid being a mere “afterthought” in the process as Gov. Schwarzenegger recently noted.

These questions include whether it makes any sense that candidates will spend weeks (Republican and Democratic contenders already have spent 174 days in the state since the 2004 election) in a state with less than 1 percent of the U.S. population while making only a few appearances in much larger states? Or whether, in a race featuring the first woman, African-American and Hispanic to be serious contenders, should the question of which (if any) of them will be the frontrunner be decided by the third whitest state in the country?

For many years, I thought New Hampshire’s unique status was a relic of another era which made no sense in modern politics and, ultimately, undemocratic given its homogeneity. It was only after I spent time in New Hampshire volunteering for the 1992 Clinton campaign that I became a convert.

For centuries, New Hampshire has been a model of direct democracy. The New Hampshire primary is an extension of the fact that town hall meetings continue to this day and voters know their elected officials as they have one state legislator for every 3,000 citizens (compared to 165,000 for California). I discovered this while campaigning in the town of Exeter, where the first question I was asked was not about any pressing issue, but when was Clinton going to visit this town of approximately 12,000 people (something unfathomable in other states).

New Hampshirians are very aware of the responsibility they carry and take their role very seriously. In a poll before the 2004 primary, 75 percent of New Hampshire voters were following the race fairly or very closely (compared to 52 percent nationwide), while other polling has shown that more than 25 percent of New Hampshire voters attend one or more candidate event. A San Antonio Express reporter commented that the state was the most vivid example of participatory democracy as “voters are actually engaged and excited.” This is visible just being there the weekend before the primary, when the state is abuzz amidst the political equivalent of Mardi Gras, unlike other states where the primary may occur virtually unnoticed.

This history and the smallness of the state have made it the off-Broadway of American politics and the original “no-spin zone,” as candidates are forced to address voter questions in town meetings across the state. Unknown candidates can break out here with little money and well-funded national names may fall because of their ineffectiveness at “retail politics.” Even though today’s national political campaigns are primarily “wholesale politics,” a candidate’s skill or weakness at retail politics translates into other important areas, including their ability to deal with the press and their success in critical fall debates.

It is important to remember, however, that while New Hampshire may be the first electoral primary, in today’s system the true first contest is fundraising. In this “primary,” California, not New Hampshire, is the kingmaker, as in 2004, it was the top source of contributions for Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark, Gephardt and Kucinich, and among the top for all others. California is far from being an “afterthought” since the road to the White House depends on a candidate’s success in the living rooms of both states.

That does not mean that California should not consider moving up its historically late primary. Any consideration, however, should take into account the fact that the more we front-load the process and shorten the time between the New Hampshire primary and the remaining primaries, the less likely it is that a dark horse candidate can break out of New Hampshire and have the capability to be a serious contender in the remaining states. In addition, each additional state that moves their primary to immediately follow New Hampshire’s may actually reduce the influence of both states, as candidates will scramble to cover the many states squeezed into such a short windrow of opportunity.

The California debate only highlights the need for reform and the solution may be a system of rotating regional primaries. Any reform, however, must respect New Hampshire’s history and dedication to being the first testing ground for future commanders-in-chief.

As the Washington Post’s David Broder notes: “Nobody does it better.” And in our flawed political system, the last thing we need to do is fix something that works quite well.

Bennet Kelley can be reached at bennet@bennetkelley.com.