So there’s this election you’ve probably heard a little bit about. It is the 2008 presidential election and it may seem like it has been needlessly in your face 24/7, but the actual voting is only eight weeks away.

There have been all sorts of information floating around about Iowa, New Hampshire, primaries and caucuses which might lead you to wonder…caucus? Primary? Huh?

Don’t worry, you’re not alone. The presidential nomination process is often confusing and misunderstood even by those who vote.

Iowa’s caucus system has voters gather in local places in each precinct, often the town hall or a person’s home, and discuss the merits of each candidate from the Democratic or Republican party.

Of these decisions from each precinct, the state makes a greater decision, and from there the nation makes a final decision at the Democratic or Republican national convention.

A caucus is very personal and different from a primary in that voter choices are made public to all and are agreed upon or ripped apart by other voters.

Iowa and New Hampshire, the two states whose caucuses and primaries are traditionally held first, see more grassroots campaigning than any other state, and see a great boost in their economies each presidential election season.

Many also consider the nomination process over once Iowa and New Hampshire have cast their votes for a nominee.

So why are these local gatherings in small states so important? Because the Iowa caucus could very well determine the party’s nominee.

In the Nov. 12 issue of Newsweek, a reporter asked an Iowa resident about the state’s powerful presidential atmosphere.

“Iowans deserve the first caucus because ‘they’re hardworking people with a sense of responsibility,’ says Joni Vondrak, 39…But neither she nor her husband plans to vote in the caucus, because they doubt the results will make much difference.”

Does this make anyone else say…What?! Iowans deserve to be first in the nation to pick each party’s candidate because they are responsible voters, but two of them won’t even be fulfilling their duty?

There’s no denying Iowa and New Hampshire are important; most candidates easily spend the largest amount of money and time there, and, historically, the winner of those two states has only lost the party’s nomination once.

But demographically, these two states are nowhere near being representative of the country. The make-up of Iowa includes mostly white, older individuals, who, as Vondrak herself admitted, often don’t even turn out to voice their opinions on the candidates.

New Hampshire and Iowa delegates combined make up less than one percent of delegates that determine the nominee.

All of this has prompted other states to want in and wonder why only two states are benefitting when this country has 48 others?

The 2008 presidential process has caused quite a kerfuffle. Other states, tired of submitting to Iowa and New Hampshire’s control over the system, have revolted.

Florida announced it would hold its primary Jan. 29, prompting New Hampshire, whose constitutional provision says it is to hold its primary first in the country, to push its primary date up. New Hampshire Democrats and GOP members will likely vote the first week in January but are strategically waiting.

Both the Iowa Democrats and Republicans will hold their caucuses on Jan. 3, 2008. More than 20 states will hold their primaries on Feb. 5, now dubbed “Super-Duper Tuesday.”

It is understandable why states are positioning for the first primary. Each state should have a proportionate say in who their party’s nominee is. The current system is obviously flawed.

While there are plans for reform, each with pros and cons, one thing is clear: Voters outside of Iowa and New Hampshire should also have a say in the nomination process.

After all, the governor of Iowa or New Hampshire is not being chosen; we’re voting for the president, and everyone should have a voice in who they want their leader to be.