Today, after more than a year of campaigning, debates, polls, fund-raising and ads, voters cast their first votes in the Iowa caucuses. Iowa is always first because it demands that it be first, but no matter who wins, this profoundly distorts the race.

Iowa-first does not make sense for two major reasons. First, Iowa is one of the most unrepresentative states in the country. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, it is 90 percent non-Hispanic white. Seventy-eight percent of the country is white. Only 4 percent of Iowans are African American who make up about 13 percent of the country. Only 6 percent are Hispanic who make up 18.3 percent of the country. Iowa also has one of the harshest felony disenfranchisement laws in the country, which, in our still racially biased criminal justice system, disproportionately strips people of color their right to vote.

Iowa is also disproportionately made up of retirees, with a lower percentage of young people in their 20s or 30s. It is more rural than America, without one city over 250,000 in population. As Michelle Cottle of the New York Times editorial board wrote in June, "the Iowa electorate looks as much like the face of America as does the Senate Republican conference." That speaks for itself.

Second, Iowa is a caucus state, with rules that get more convoluted each cycle. Much romance is spread about the small "d" democratic nature of a caucus, where neighbors gather for hours, defend their choices and then decide. The image is attractive; the reality much less so.

In fact, few working people -- particularly low-wage workers, who often work two or three jobs to make ends meet, can afford the time to spend a night to cast a vote. Only 16 percent of eligible voters turned up in 2016, despite contested primaries in both parties.

Moreover, a caucus strips away the privacy of a vote. Imagine a worker facing his or her employer across the room and forced to choose to support the candidate he or she favors against the candidate favored by the boss. If this were Mississippi, we would be clear about how this distorts and suppresses the vote. People in Iowa may be nicer, but the dynamics are the same.

I have fond memories of Iowa. Its voters gave me a hearing. In the 1988 primary, I remember a couple of family farmers coming up to me after I spoke one night, and saying, "We like what you say. We are not quite there yet but keep on working." They could vote in private, but they could not argue in front of the public caucus and face their neighbors. What they were saying is that they were not quite there yet but liked that I had a clear commitment to defending family farmers against the agribusiness predators.

The caucus favors candidates with passionate followers, so I benefited from that too. And, of course, when Barack Obama won Iowa, it gave his campaign a massive boost. This year, Iowa should be a Joe Biden state with its older population, but it looks like its voters are favoring candidates of change instead. Iowa also has a strong anti-war sentiment, which surely is a good thing.

But fondness doesn't erase the injustice. That's why Bernie Sanders -- who probably beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa last time if the votes were counted properly -- argued against caucuses, even though they favored his passionate supporters. They discriminate against working people, which is surely unacceptable at a time of obscene and growing inequality.

Iowa, of course, is followed by the first primary in New Hampshire -- a state also disproportionately white, older and rural. This is an obvious bias against candidates of color. As Julian Castro, who ran a good campaign this time noted, Democrats can't "complain about Republicans suppressing the votes of people of color and then begin our nominating contest in two states that hardly have people of color."

It shouldn't be hard to change this. Given how important Midwest states have become, it would be wise to have Michigan or Illinois, or Wisconsin be one of the early states. Small states could be represented early also, but that slot could be rotated to include others -- from Delaware to New Mexico to Hawaii -- that are more representative.

There's no good reason for Iowa and New Hampshire to be first, other than that the two states insist on it -- for its obvious economic benefits. So, no matter who wins Iowa tonight, it is long past time to rotate what state comes first in the presidential primaries.

You can write to the Rev. Jesse Jackson in care of this newspaper or by email at jjackson@rainbowpush.org. Follow him on Twitter @RevJJackson.