With primary season in full swing, we are reminded of the disproportionate amount of… With primary season in full swing, we are reminded of the disproportionate amount of attention paid to early primary states Iowa and New Hampshire.

These crucial first tests of a candidate’s electability can shift momentum in almost any direction, giving candidates who were trailing in money and support early on a crucial boost or destroying the presidential prospects of former frontrunners.

This momentum shift usually then leads to the second crucial “m” word: money. It takes a village to run a campaign. A rich village.

The importance of campaigning heavily in these early states, combined with a frontloaded primary season (states jealous of Iowa and New Hampshire’s influence have lobbied – and in some cases – succeeded in moving up their primary dates), has caused this election’s campaign season to start earlier than ever. And, of course, extending the race makes campaigning even more expensive – which makes victories in Iowa and New Hampshire even more important in terms of fundraising.

While the democratic spirit of the Iowa caucuses – voters discuss their choices in small groups before casting their ballots – showcases American democracy at its finest, the disproportionate importance of an Iowa victory is about as undemocratic as it gets, particularly for states like Pennsylvania, whose primary will come after the each party’s candidates are virtually set in stone.

When you step back and look at the entire primary process, it’s bizarre, really. Every four years, about 10 to 20 middle-aged, rich politicians spend months speaking at schools, diners, front porches – you name it – in two states that represent a mere 11 of the 538 total electoral college votes. And while Iowa is in the geographic “heart of America,” its 93.9 percent white population, according to CNN, is certainly not a microcosm of the United States.

The Iowa/New Hampshire kickoff of the election season has been rooted in the last half century of American history, and with every presidential contest, the importance of victories in these states – and the money spent campaigning in them – increases.

Now is the time to modify the primary system, before it becomes even more disproportionate and expensive.

One plausible alternative could be a rotating primary system. Every election season, different states, big or small, red or blue, north, south, east or west, can make the all-important first vote.

Or we could set the primary schedule on an incentive system.

Reward the states with the most per-capita participation in the general election by giving them the first primary in the next general election. It could even encourage increased participation.

The primary system is supposed to be about selecting the best candidates from each party for the presidency, not the president most suited to the interest of voters in a few select states.

We need to overhaul our primary system, so that all voters can have a say in who becomes our next president.