What is wrong with this picture?

 

Well, it’s not really a picture; I’m thinking about our political process again.

 

Anybody can run for president.  Up until the first few primaries, any candidate is viable.  The first two or three primaries narrow the field to a select few however.  If you don’t do well in the first three primaries, you won’t be able to attract any more campaign money, so you’re effectively eliminated.

 

Okay.  I get it.  The field needs to be narrowed somehow, but I have a problem with the “how”.  For two out of the three first states, we’ve been hearing nonstop about the power of the evangelical voter.  Two out of the first three states are about as “evangelical” as you can get.  The system sets a religion test at the very outset, and if you don’t pass that, you don’t get to continue.

 

I realize evangelicals are a significant portion of the population, and their voice should be heard, but I don’t think they represent the majority of the country.  Is that fair, that first the field is narrowed by the most religious voters, then the rest of the country gets to decide among the remaining?  If that does seem like a good idea, then what if it were the opposite, and the three states that were the least religious were the first hurdle to pass on the way to our presidency?  Would that be just as good?