In early May, David Broder wrote an op-ed complaining about the Democratic Primaries in which he noted that,
“The two states that voted on Tuesday — Indiana and North Carolina — are so unimportant to Democratic chances of electing the next president that it is unlikely Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make more than a token appearance in either after one of them is nominated.
Unless John McCain butchers his campaign, he will be an odds-on favorite to continue the Republican winning streak in both states.
. . .
Lots of people complain that Iowa and New Hampshire enjoy disproportionate influence because of their place at the start of the process. But both are closely contested in November — not throwaways.”
Two question in response:

1) Why does anyone ever listen to David Broder?
2) Wouldn't it be crazy if we had an electoral system where gaining a vote in any state fully offset losing a vote in any other state, so that politicians had incentives to compete for all of our votes? Some kind of national, popular vote, perhaps?