Some have argued in recent years, that the presidential primaries have become increasingly unfair and, more alarmingly, increasingly detached from true democracy.

Nearly all of us can agree that it is more important to elect a president based on his/her leadership skills rather than his/her wealth. For the past decade, however, the primaries have shifted dramatically forward in the campaign cycle and the process has become more money-centric, thus all but eliminating underfunded dark-horse and underdog candidates, who may possess the talents and qualities to be president but lack the funds.

Meanwhile, the voters are also shortchanged, as states battle for the earliest primaries. While every state’s citizens deserve the personal attention that presidential candidates give to voters in key early states like Iowa and New Hampshire, most Americas will not hear a candidate — Democrat or Republican, front-runner or underdog — in person this year.

Yet, even as candidates pour seemingly endless amounts of money into their campaigns in a relatively small number of states, we can sense a kind of democracy at work.

Before voters in electoral giants like New York and California vote in the Feb. 5 “Super Tuesday” primaries, voters in states as diverse as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida will make their choices — and with the vast amount of attention paid to the residents of these early primary states, we can rest assured that these voters will make relatively well-informed decisions.

One Iowan told reporters that he saw a candidate speak 27 times before last weeks caucuses. That sort of access — while slightly overbearing — gives voters the chance to really get to know the candidates and make a well-educated decision. It is this kind of prolonged face time in early primary states that levels the uneven playing field caused by the often-vast money gap that separates the prominent candidates from the more obscure ones.

While Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) does not lack funds and his victory in Iowa last week did not come as a surprise to many, the Republican winner of the Hawkeye State, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, was vastly outspent in Iowa by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whom he soundly defeated in the polls. In Iowa, money did not buy the caucuses.

Tonight, the country turns its eyes to New Hampshire, where Obama and Huckabee will look to build on their Iowa success, while their rivals will look to capture some momentum of their own in the Granite State.

The system’s detractors would argue that Iowa and New Hampshire voters are unrepresentative of the rest of the country. Maybe they are; but at least they are unrepresentative in different ways and, thus, oddly representative of Americans as a whole.

Iowa is an overwhelmingly white state with fiercely liberal Democrats and socially conservative Republicans. New Hampshire — whose state motto is, famously, “Live Free or Die” — is a haven for independents who are rabidly antitax. Another early primary state, South Carolina, has a higher percentage of black voters than most other states in the Union.

Our electoral system has its flaws, to be sure, but with such an eclectic mix of states involved in the early primary season, the American people should be comforted to know that a wide array of voters are making informed decisions this month.

—————————————

The Editorial Board would like to remind readers to stay involved with politics, both local and national. Californians vote on Feb. 5 and must register to do so by Jan. 22. California registration forms as well as absentee ballots — for those who wish to vote in their home states — can be obtained from either the Stanford Democrats (http://www.stanforddems.com/register-to-vote or email the campus director at sbaimel at stanford.edu) or the Stanford College Republicans (email the president and campaign relations director at cjkelm at stanford.edu). Another option for absentee voters is http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm.