Looking in New Hampshire, in particular, I see several benefits. It’s a very small state, so every candidate is able to meet individually and in very small groups with a significant cross-section of the state. Because its first and because there has historically been a decent interval before the next contest, the people of New Hampshire get VERY personal attention from the candidates. I think that is quite beneficial, allowing them to stand in proxy for the rest of us. I’m not sure it can be duplicated in many other states. In any state that’s larger either geographically or population-wise, candidates would have to rely more on mass media to reach most of the state’s voters. The victor in New Hampshire is hardly guaranteed to go on to win his party’s nomination. As the article you cite notes, it does give a chance to someone who has trouble with fund-raising early on to give a strong early showing… precisely because it’s not as expensive to campaign in New Hampshire (more stump speeches, fewer commercials, and the commercials are probably cheaper).

I’m not sure the same case can be made for Iowa. Unlike New Hampshire, it has several particular special interests which must be pandered to in order to prevail. If it weren’t for Iowa, we wouldn’t be obsessed with Ethanol as the only possible alternative for oil, and we would have reduced farm subsidies long before now, I think.

So I say let New Hampshire keep pride of place. Beyond that, I think the regional method may have much to commend it. I’ll look at it more closely.