Which Democrat won Iowa? Who cares?

Oh, Iowa, first in the nation, so unlike the rest of the nation yet so influential on the nominating process for president. Until now, perhaps. The meltdown of the Iowa caucus in full glare of the national spotlight should — we believe — end of the tyranny of this nonrepresentative state over our presidential nominating process.

Not that Iowa being first has much to do with the failure of the caucuses to achieve clarity in the Democratic race — an apparent failure of a new app designed to tally results led to no one knowing who actually won the caucus on the Democratic side until late Tuesday.

President Donald Trump won the Republican vote and could be said to be the overall winner of the entire night because attention then turned to him. As president, he got to deliver the State of the Union a day after voting in Iowa had stopped.

Iowa is supposed to be good for a bump going into New Hampshire, the second state to vote — another nonrepresentative place — and without a clear, quick winner, there will be no boost, no anointing of the front-runner. In this age of all media, 24/7, the page turns quickly. The State of the Union will dominate headlines today, not who prevailed in Iowa.

The abject misery of Monday night, with vote counts unavailable and the unraveling of TV pundits, underscores the challenges to overcome in making sure people trust the electoral process.

First, it’s important to point out that the fact that Iowa could not be counted quickly does not mean its results are suspect. Iowa, thankfully, had a paper backup. The failure does mean the system used was not tested adequately beforehand. The complexity of the caucus system, combined with the new online app, created disaster. Even weak Wi-Fi signals in high school gymnasiums — a sign of poor infrastructure that plagues much of the nation — helped cause delays.

We in New Mexico can sympathize with the mess. In February 2008, our state’s attempt to matter in the presidential nominating process ended badly when the final tally between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could not be completed for weeks. It was a black eye for New Mexico, just as Iowa is being shamed nationally right now.

Don’t forget that in Iowa, caucus gatherings are put together by the respective political parties and a host of volunteers. They have been criticized — rightly, we believe — for their undemocratic nature, but we respect the work that goes into assembling the process.

Iowa caucusing means hours spent debating the various candidates, something that heavily favors the retired, people who can take off from their jobs and others with the freedom to come and go.

Disabled people, folks with small children and no child care and working people who can’t take time off are disenfranchised by a system that requires many hours in one physical location. A primary, on the other hand, offers a secret ballot and the ability to vote quickly and return to the business of the day.

Even without the nondemocratic nature of Iowa’s system, its population is hardly representative — 91 percent of participants in the Iowa caucuses are white. The state skews older, as well. That makes the electorate unlike both the Democratic Party and the national electorate — the Democratic Party, for example, is 40 percent nonwhite. To give Iowa and New Hampshire, where 93 percent of the voters are white, such influence at the start of the process silences more diverse voices.

Democrats, in particular, need to move to a system of nominating the president that allows more diverse states — think Illinois, Nevada, even New Mexico — to weigh in on the nomination earlier in the process.

If party leaders can’t make Iowa and New Hampshire change dates, just ignore them. Writing in the New York Times, Michael Tomasky offered this solution: “Let Iowa and New Hampshire hold their caucus and primary, but don’t participate. Make all the candidates agree that they won’t seek a spot on the ballot.”

A system of regional primaries, with states voting several weeks apart, could even keep Iowa and New Hampshire in the first group while adding a Nevada or a South Carolina to the mix, for example. A Rust Belt state such as Michigan could be worked in the first series of primaries, showing the Democratic Party how the front-runners appeal to blue-collar voters. Heck, put Ohio first. It’s a state Democrats usually must win.

Folding Iowa and New Hampshire into earlier primaries — but diversifying the field — could satisfy tradition while recognizing the changing electorate. Bringing in diverse voices early would help Democrats choose a nominee better equipped to appeal to all factions of its big-tent party while demonstrating a clear alternative to an increasingly xenophobic Republican Party. The changing America is something to celebrate, not fear.

Meanwhile, who won Iowa? Who cares?