Our nomination system sucks

I will easily concede that there are many problems with our government and our electoral system which undermine the interests of both the people, and the common good but the reform which you are advocating will only act to further remove personal participation from our political system and replace it with the strength of fund raising. While the state by state system does have some problems, the current order that the presidential primaries and caucuses are conducted in makes it possible for a candidate with limited funds to actually participate. New Hampshire requires a mere thousand dollars to place a candidate on the ballot of their primary, and the state is small enough that a campaign with limited staff and resources can still meet a large number of voters. This distinction makes it possible to run a race with out spending tens of millions of dollars on paid media, which means a candidate that cannot raise those kinds of funds may still participate. With the State of Iowa's system caucus system, it actually makes it even more likely for a candidate with limited national name recognition to make a strong showing. In years prior, the turn out for the Iowa Caucuses on the Democratic side of the ticket was just above one hundred thousand democratic activists. This made it incredibly easy for a candidate with a staff number just a few dozen to work within the rural and urban communities of Iowa and contact recruit, and appeal to the specific activists. Many politicians will joke about how in Iowa, a Democratic activist will insist on meeting the candidate multiple times before caucusing for them. Many of the activists that caucus take the time to attend multiple events, and consider themselves often to be undecided as the walk into the caucus though they may have someone in mind that they intend to support. The nature of the Iowa caucuses requires face to face interaction as opposed to primaries in larger states, such as California where a campaign will rely more on media buys than on turning out individuals who have actually attended events. The caucus system is not designed to be an open primary, and it should naturally disenfranchise. The caucus is intended to be the meeting at which the business of the party is conducted. It is there that platform planks are first submitted, and local county committee assignments are made by those in the room. It is the basis of a grass roots party, and designed to limit top down action on the policies which the party will support and advocate. With the break down into candidate preference groups, it is intended that delegates to the county will reflect the support of the presidential candidates so that our local, county, and state policies may reflect the spirit of the individuals who are most likely to receive the support of Iowa's delegates at the national convention. The 15% viability rule is a necessity due to the fact that many precincts in Iowa have very few county delegates to reward, and you can't really apply a part of one delegate to a county convention. It'd be very difficult to tell a person that 12% of them has to support Dodd, 23% has to support Richardson, and the rest can support Biden to appease those who turned out to support their candidate, but that were not viable. While those living in states that do not have a first in the nation status may feel envious of Iowans and others living in the early states, it is a necessity to avoid the profound influence of money on the system from being even more powerful. A national primary system would mean that to be able to campaign in 50 states at once, you would require the funding to campaign in 50 states at once, as sum which is likely to be several hundred millions dollars giving how modern politics is conducted in the United States. And any good citizen should be deftly afraid of any politician who can fund raise a hundred million dollars before they're even a nominee. Unless you want to have fund raising be the only factor in electoral politics in the United States, we cannot implement a national primary system. Your criticism ought to be directed at the media, not the system, for failing to include much, if any coverage of candidates that were not polling in the top three, or fund raising tens of millions of dollars. Journalists and pundits serving increased readership and ratings rather than truth have betrayed the national interests of this county, and undermined the strength of our democracy.