This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

It is too bad that the argument over whether other states should join with Utah, Arizona and New Mexico in holding an early-season presidential primary has been cast so much in terms of dollars and cents.

Because it should be about votes and democracy.

It's not that money isn't involved. It certainly is.

On the plus side, if the Republican and Democratic candidates for president, along with their entourages and the trailing media gaggle, were all drawn to visit the Intermountain West for any period of time before the Feb. 5 primary, they'd all spend a lot of money on hotels, meals, auto rentals, security, gasoline, etc.

Oh, yes, and media advertising.

On the minus side, taxpayers in each state would have to foot the bill for the election itself - Utah has already set aside $850,000 - plus perhaps some ancillary costs of providing security for assorted dignitaries. Worrying about that expense has been the roadblock keeping Montana from joining the party.

But adding Montana and Idaho to the Western States Primary - and, dare we dream, Colorado - would make it more attractive to candidates, and thus more useful to the voters of the whole region.

The point is that the traditional first-in-the-nation contests - Iowa's Jan. 14 caucuses and New Hampshire's Jan. 22 primary election - may charm the national media as examples of retail politics played out in living rooms and diners. But both contests focus on small constituencies that, however great their charm, are not representative of the nation as a whole.

This is particularly true in Iowa, where candidates are expected to pledge their troth to tax-supported corn-based ethanol production, and where the hours-long caucus process winnows the electorate down to a sample not representative of the whole state, much less the country.

A Western States Primary wouldn't necessarily be a scientifically valid cross-section of the whole nation, either. But it would push candidates to address issues of importance to us, such as public lands, energy exploration, water conservation and illegal immigration.

We might not all like what we heard. But at least we'd be talked to. And the whole nation could listen.

A Western States Primary would push candidates to address issues of importance to us.