Today officially begins the presidential race with the Iowa caucus. It only makes sense that the most ridiculous and least democratic method of selecting a candidate should be the first of all of the primaries. (please find no sarcasm in the last statement) Today, a handful of Iowa's eligible electorate will attend the caucus for the Democratic and Republican candidates. These caucuses are separate events for the Democrats and Republicans, and have different rules about how delegates for candidates are chosen.
For a full primer on the event visit visit npr.org
With a population of about three million, Iowa will likely have less than 200,000 people attend its caucus. Being the first event of the primary season, the media coverage of the event will be disproportionate to the value of the delegates gained through the process. The coverage will create the front runners for both parties and eliminate the stragglers. The cash to the candidates who don't appeal to the Iowans will dry up, and the rest of the nation will have fewer choices for our leadership. All from a couple hundred thousand Iowans who participate in a process that eliminates a fair segment of the potential electorate by its nature. Somehow I just can't get my arms around why we pay attention to this mess.
For those of us that actually follow politics, this is the start of an interesting year. Unfortunately, it will start with a process that doesn't make sense, and will limit our choices in the future. Keep in mind if you watch the news tonight, that there are candidates for this country's highest office that might not be around next week because the Iowa Republican and Democratic parties insist on being glactically backward in how the elect their delegates. If it's not your candidate then you probably won't care. If it is your candidate blame Iowa. More specifically the less than ten percent of Iowans who will make it to the caucus today.
I'll be watching, and I'm sure that tomorrow I'll have a stiff neck from shaking my head in disgust. When will we finally understand that good government involves the participation of the people.
- ND
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
glactically backward
I like that.
It seems that a caucus race is always run by some Dodo with the participation of a few bird brains.
I'm just a dumb housewife who scrubs toliets and clips coupons, so weigh that with my two cents here, but I would like to blame the two dominate political parties, specifically the state delegations. In their desire to be "relevant", they have moved their primaries up in the calendar year. As you say ND, a handful of people (relative to the registered electorate) limit the choices for the rest of us. Can't figure out voter apathy? How about explaining to me the purpose of going to the polls in Missouri's August primary to cast a vote for John McCain when W had been anointed months earlier (as was the case in 2000). There has to be a better, smarter primary system whether it's done by region or state size. And puh-leaze have the first primaries/caucuses in April or May to condense the election cycle. I'm sure there are Iowans and New Hampshire-ites who just *love* making the candidates stump around in their ass-biting cold climates for a January event.
I only have 2 words for this current, never ending president election cycle: RON PAUL!
Was that Ron Paul or Rue Paul? Cause Rue Paul would be like a Hilary Obama combo. I'd be cool with that option.
First, glaciers never move backwards. They may melt, but always move forward -- that's the regular science.
Here's the political science. If you don't like the choices, don't stay within the D or R party. If you think the system is crazy, then you want the primaries moved up. That leaves less time for an Iowa front runner to remain so if he/she isn't really ready for prime time (Huck/Obama).
Caucuses are the most Democratic form of nomination mechanism, not the least. And while I agree that having Iowans "annoint" anyone is absolutely insane, the process tends to act as a cull for vanity candidates... Dodd, Biden and we'll see who else.
Anyway. The system isn't perfect. But, then again, on election day in November, any eligible Joe Schome who didn't make up his mind until he got in the booth, and based his decision on whether the candidate had the best hair, can cancel out my vote.
That's the real shame.
Bro. Dave.
Well Bro. Dave I agree with some of what you said but not everything as usual.
I agree on the glacier science, vanity candidates, and voting based on hair style comments. I disagree on the most democratic comment.
Putting people in a room and shuffling around their votes until you have a front runner doesn't seem so democratic to me. Your guy doesn't have the required 15% so you have to choose someone else is not democracy... it's coercion. Well, perhaps that's not the best choice of words, but it works.
I do also agree on the problem you describe with the party system. I often wish that the other options were not so fringe. Perhaps then they would be viable.
Thanks for you views...
- ND
In my day such wankers were anointed by which particular tart gave birth to them. Then there was the ever present influence of which manner you worshiped your deity. I cannot begin to tell you the problems that resulted from both, but can tell you that my conscience is clean in my service to enact change (even if it was influenced by alternate deity worship).
Hair styles and money is the way now eh? You bloody tossers can't get anything right!
Good words.
Post a Comment