Note to Loyal Readers: Why We Don't Do Politics Here

Many readers have asked us to expand our scope to include politics. We have so far declined to do so, and have no intention to change our position in that regard. Part of our reason for this stance is that we are fed up with this country's serial primary system for selecting presidential nominees. Pointedly, our view on this was aptly captured by a letter published in the Arizona Republic (Feb. 23), to which we have nothing to add. That letter reads as follows:

" There is a good argument to make that letting three states—Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, which will have essentially no impact on the general election, to have the enormous impact they do (often decisive) on who the presidential nominees will be is just plain nuts. There are pros and cons of holding one national primary, or four regional primaries, or various other approaches, but one conclusion is inescapable: Any way of shortening and consolidating the primaries would be better than the system we have, which starts too soon, takes too long, costs too much, and mis-allocates voter preferences in states that actually matter."