South Carolina should fund our " first in the South" presidential primary.
States battle over who will have the first primaries. Our state was chosen because it is a small state. The candidates have a chance to canvass each county; therefore more people consider running.
We also have a diverse population so the results can give an indication of how the nation will vote; South Carolina voters repeatedly have picked the Republican nominee.
We became "the first in the South" when our party leaders, as well as our representatives and senators, and others worked together to petition their respective parties to choose our state. It was a pitched battle.
Florida will give up half of its electoral votes at the Republican convention to move to Jan. 31. (That is the "fine" for ignoring party dictates about primary dates.)
This is important to South Carolina because it has put us on the map. We are in the spotlight because we have the "first in the South" primary.
Our marketing money and the work of our legislators to bring tourists and businesses to South Carolina do not attract attention like the "first in the South" primary.
Also, the expense of putting on the primary is offset by money spent by the candidates and their entourages in the state
This is from a lifelong resident and Democrat.
Anne C. Pollitzer
St. Helena Island