Ohio might as well be called the Goldilocks State: It’s big without being too big, neither too red nor too blue and it’s culturally diverse. Another option is Colorado, but its caucus process could prove just as tedious as Iowa’s. Florida would be nice, too, but as the third most populous state in the country, its media markets might be too expensive. Virginia is another good option, but that might favor D.C.-based politicians who can simply drive down every weekend. North Carolina, another racially diverse swing state, could replace New Hampshire as second-in-the-nation.

There’s just one problem with Ohio becoming the new Iowa: Ohio doesn’t want to be first in the nation. Jon Husted, Ohio’s secretary of state, said that as swing-state voters Ohioans get enough attention from presidential candidates as it is. Putting even more focus on the state would make it more expensive for candidates at the state level to buy local advertising.

“I think we probably have enough impact on who becomes president already. I think that’s what some people would say,” he said. “We don’t feel neglected, let’s put it that way. We get plenty of attention.”

So, what can be done? The realistic answer is, “Not much.” Quite a few people have floated smart ideas for reforming the presidential primary system. Michael McDonald, a professor of political science at the University of Florida, has proposed pushing back the primary calendar to April or May. As a reminder, Canada’s campaign for prime minister last year lasted about 11 weeks — blissfully short by American campaign standards. Others have proposed a rotating regional primary, or alternately, one national Primary Day to even the playing field.

But the idea of holding one national primary is difficult, as it could even the playing field in some ways, while still disproportionately benefiting candidates who can campaign across 50 states without their money running out — or who are skilled enough media personalities that they don’t need to rely on showing up in person. It would also mean there is no gradual winnowing of the field, which is arguably the best purpose the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries serve.

A staggered primary system, by contrast, helps candidates build that all-important yet intangible “momentum,” giving donors and voters more time to assess which candidate best fits their values.

Another asset of the staggered primary system is it gives us a chance to see how candidates interact with real live voters on the campaign trail before we cast our votes. John C. Fortier, the director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Democracy Project, says that while our current system may not be ideal, Iowa and New Hampshire do serve the political process by requiring candidates to meet with voters one-on-one and address their concerns.