CONCORD, N.H. (AP) – No one is surprised, but no one is happy either.

Prominent state politicians from both parties objected Saturday to a national Democratic commission’s recommendation to add one or two caucuses after Iowa’s but before New Hampshire’s primary.

“This is the logical conclusion of an illogical commission,” said Warren Henderson, chairman of the state Republican party. “This commission set out to address a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Democrats elsewhere have complained that Iowa and New Hampshire, predominantly white states, have too much influence in picking presidential nominees. They want more ethnically diverse voters from different regions of the country participating in the process.

But New Hampshire Republicans and Democrats say the state offers something that’s just as important – an involved electorate. “New Hampshire gives a broad level of participation,” said Republican analyst Tom Rath.

The state has high voter turnout and a long history of independent-minded voters who pay close attention to potential candidates well before the election, he said. “You just don’t get those attributes by tinkering with the calendar.”

Democrats agree.

“Frontloading the calendar with new caucuses would make the process narrower and less democratic, and it would be a huge setback to Democrats’ efforts to carry Iowa and New Hampshire in the future,” said Kathy Sullivan, chairman of the state Democratic party.

Sullivan noted that caucuses typically draw far fewer voters than primary elections. The recommendation does call for adding one or two primaries after New Hampshire’s. After that, the election calendar would open to other states by Feb. 5.

Democratic analyst Jim Demers said there’s a danger in scheduling too many contests in too short a time.

Candidates, especially those with limited resources, could choose to focus their campaigns in just a few states if there’s a tight timeframe.

Demers said he hopes Democrats will stick to the larger goal of finding a nominating process that allows more of America to participate.

“If we allow the debate to be diversity versus New Hampshire, we will lose,” he said.

Secretary of State William Gardner, who sets the primary date, did not want to comment Saturday until he had more information on the commission’s decision.

Gardner has been a fierce defender of the New Hampshire primary, the nation’s earliest since 1920. When Delaware threatened in 1996, Gardner set the date only nine weeks before.

To keep rivals from jumping ahead, the Legislature – which elects Gardner every two years – has given him the authority to set New Hampshire’s primary ahead of other contests.

Gardner has not said how he will react if Democrats change the primary schedule, but he has said he won’t set a date until late 2007.