One thing has remained constant about New Hampshire politics in the past 85 years - the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

In two days, voters will head to the polls for the state's 22nd primary.

While the date, candidates and voters' political opinions have changed, the expectations - and significance - haven't.

Since 1920, when New Hampshire earned first-in-the-nation primary status, most expect the state to pick a winner.

Only twice since New Hampshire voters have chosen a presidential nominee have they failed to pick a winner. The first time was in 1992, when Democrats chose former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass., over Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. Just eight years later, state Republicans chose U.S. Sen. John McCain over President George W. Bush.

These two votes mar an otherwise flawless voting record, but that doesn't mean voters won't pick the winner this time around, according to Secretary of State William Gardner.

While it's unclear why New Hampshire residents have such a great voting record, those who have observed and studied the primary process agree on one thing: It's the state's history, perhaps even in residents' blood.

After all, the term "Republican" was coined in Exeter in 1853, long before the primary system even existed. And, as Gardner pointed out, New Hampshire has more residents elected to political office than any other state. The state Legislature is the third-largest lawmaking body in the English-speaking world.

"It's our unique political culture," he said. "It's that there are more people in this state that have held public office - we're always in election mode, more people are involved. It's a unique place."

In one form or another, the ever-evolving New Hampshire primary has been in the state since 1916. It was then a group of angry farmers changed the system and earned every man a vote. For the next nine presidential elections, New Hampshire voters elected delegates who convened to choose a presidential nominee.

In 1952, the system changed and New Hampshire voters began using the system still in use today - one resident, one vote.

Although there is a state law that requires the New Hampshire primary to be the first in the nation, it wasn't always that way.

During New Hampshire's first primary in 1916, Indiana voted a week before New Hampshire and Minnesota.

It was by fate - or accident - that New Hampshire became first. In 1920, Minnesota switched from a primary to a caucus and Indiana moved its primary to May.

But New Hampshire legislators thought it made more sense to hold the primary on Town Meeting Day - the second Tuesday in March - which gave New Hampshire first-in-the-nation status.

But it took almost 50 years for some voters to recognize the significance of that status, according to Michael Chaney, president of the New Hampshire Political Library. Most will agree the real turning point in the New Hampshire primary came in 1968.

Not only was political advertising popularized by television at that time, but voters realized they had the power to start a national discussion, Chaney said.

In 1968, New Hampshire Democratic voters nominated President Lyndon Johnson, with about 50 percent of the vote, but they also gave U.S. Sen. Eugene McCarthy 41 percent of the vote.

When Johnson saw how close the vote was in New Hampshire, he gave up his re-election bid.

"New Hampshire voters saw we have a serious responsibility here that year," Chaney said. "We have a chance to speak with the (candidates) one-on-one. It's just impossible for that to happen later in the primary (season), because there are many more states voting."

As voters began to respect the process more, the candidates respected their votes more.

The stump speeches, coffee breaks and retail politics that flood New Hampshire these days officially began to take off in the late 1960s.

Gardner cited former President Clinton, who has pointed out the significance of talking to New Hampshire voters dozens of times.

"He said the process makes them a better candidate and a better president, because they've been engaged in conversation with the residents," he said.

No one gets to know candidates as well as New Hampshire residents, which is one reason they may have such a good record in picking a winner, according to Gardner.

"Our record is pretty good," he said. "You'll be hard pressed to find any other state with a primary that has a better record than us, and we go first with a big field (of candidates)."

Both times New Hampshire voters failed to pick the future president as their nominee, the future president was chosen as the runner-up, or second-highest vote-getter. In 1992, Tsongas beat Clinton by about 10,000 votes - or less than 10 percent of the vote.

New Hampshire voters turn out in droves, in higher numbers than they do in other states, according to Chaney. In 1992, more than 340,000 state voters cast primary ballots, and about 290,000 voters took part in the 2004 presidential primary.

"New Hampshire voters take the primary very seriously," Chaney said. "Back in the 2000 cycle, I think it was only Arizona that was close to us, but our turnout was higher by a factor of 10 percent."

It's unclear if voter turnout this week will hold up to its record, especially since the primary date is earlier than ever, proving the history of the primary is not complete, but ever evolving.

"It has remained high and likely will, because of how seriously New Hampshire voters take the primary process here," Chaney said.

This year, for the first time, six primaries and caucuses will be held in January. And 24 states - almost half of the nation - will vote on Feb. 5.

"It's impossible for a candidate to campaign, to plan and to deploy resources for that," Chaney said. "Everything is rushed up to the front."

Both Chaney and Gardner agree the first primary should stay in New Hampshire, and the commotion caused by this year's fight to be the first needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later.

"I think we will see, after this season is over and the nominees become more apparent, that there will be some serious looks and, hopefully, changes at what it was that we created this time," Chaney said.

And for those who argue New Hampshire doesn't have the most diverse population and has no right to its first-in-the-nation status, history and Chaney say otherwise.

"To say that somehow New Hampshire people are less qualified or less engaged is just an insult in a way," he said. "It is an attack that continues by other states. They want what happens here, and who wouldn't?"