This is ridiculous, we need to stop the unrepresentative state of Iowa from having the first say

[ecstatic]

F*ck tradition:

Here we have a tiny state that does not represent the American population (as far as finances and racial diversity) continually getting the opportunity to decide the Presidential nominee. This is nuts and must stop!

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19/19095.html


White persons, percent, 2005 (a) 99.2% 94.9%
Black persons, percent, 2005 (a) 0.2% 2.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2005 (a) 0.1% 0.3%
Asian persons, percent, 2005 (a) 0.3% 1.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2005 (a) 0.0% 0.0%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2005 0.1% 0.9%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2005 (b) 1.2% 3.7%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2005 98.1% 91.5%

Housing units, 2005 6,811 1,306,943
Homeownership rate, 2000 77.9% 72.3%
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 13.6% 18.4%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $85,600 $82,500

[beberocks]

1. I couldn't agree more! n/t

[frogcycle]

2. and just who the hell is "we"

States decide how and when to select their delegates to the party convention. Iowa chooses to have its caucus before anyone else's primary. It is a state law. You planning to amend the Constitution? Maybe just evict them from the country? Send in the army and make them all stay home on caucus day? Or "bomb them back to the stone age?"

[ecstatic]

4. Yep, amend it. Other states deserve a say too

Rotate the schedule, whatever, but this practice of making Iowa first is no longer working. They brought us Kerry last time, who will the bring this time? Kucinich? LOL

[frogcycle]

9. fat chance

The political parties are not even acknowledged in the Constitution. As I recall (someone will correct me - I don't feel like checking) our first two presidents had no party affiliation.

The "two party system" is only a system by default. Except for the congressional rules about who selects speaker and chairs committees, there is not really a lot of formality to it. If a third party were to send a bunch of congresspeople, they might have to adjust the seating arrangement to have two aisles!

I would much rather see movement AWAY from the rule of two ideological parties than a further formalization of them.

That does not say I want the dem party to dissolve itself - just that the US Constitution should not be dictating how the states and the people decide whom to nominate.

I agree the existing setup is absurd, and it is the product of press bias and stupidity. But dictating some federal rule is not the answer. It just sets a precedent for yet stronger central control over everything. Next thing you know they'll be dictating how to rate schools, or what the speed limits should be ...

oh, wait...

If the "delegate" and "elector" concepts were eliminated for the conventions and general elections, respectively, then the nominees could be selected by a national popular vote, as would the president. Just a thought. And maybe the "primary" election(s) would include a series of runoffs. We could do it in March and call it March Madness!

[1monster]

16. John Adams was a Federalist, but I'm not sure that it was an acknowledged

party at that time or if it was simply a philosophy of strong central government which he stood behind.

Thomas Jefferson, who was both Adams' opponent for the Presidency and his Vice President, had a political philosophy which was opposed to the Federalists...

(Thomas Jefferson's Vice President, Aaron Burr, was also his political opponent for the office of the Presidency.)

[frogcycle]

18. here's a good history

http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs/04_a03_a01.html

[1monster]

20. Thanks! It's amazing how much of this stuff I knew, but had forgotten...

[JDPriestly]

10. Rotate the schedule. That is a good idea.

We here in California are lucky if we ever in our lifetimes actually hear a candidate speak in person. Shaking hands with a candidate -- forget it. The only way a Californian gets to ask a candidate a question straight to the candidate's face is if the Californian pays a lot of money for a ticket to some very small event -- or knows someone, I suppose.

This is what keeps politics a rich man's preserve for most Americans. That is why most Americans are apathetic. It's all happening in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. I bet that if you lived in Iowa and you made just a little effort, you could be invited to an event or even just run into every single Democratic candidate this year live and in person.

I drove from the east side of Los Angeles over an hour through rush hour traffic to go see Edwards speak in a courtyard of a restaurant on the west side of Los Angeles. I met people who had driven much further and for longer times than I to see Edwards. We were corralled into the courtyard where we stood without the possibility of sitting (young, old, no matter) for quite a long time until Edwards finally appeared to speak to us. That is probably the most personal contact I will have with any candidate during this campaign. And I am pretty active politically.

The primary process does not encourage activism in most of America.

Oh, and about Iowa. How did it vote in 2004?

In the primaries they voted for Kerry:

Precinct 13 was relatively representative of the rest of Iowa. Kerry stunned pollsters and pundits by winning 38 percent of the vote at caucuses across the state, while Edwards secured an equally unexpected 32 percent. Dean mustered only 18 percent. And Gephardt, who won the Iowa caucuses in 1988, secured just 10 percent and began making arrangements to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich, the only other candidate who campaigned aggressively in Iowa, won just 1 percent of the recorded votes, as many of his backers threw their support to Edwards as part of a last-minute deal between the candidates.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=1195

But, ultimately, relatively conservative Iowa went for Bush:

Iowa's seven electoral votes boosted Bush's final tally in the 538-member Electoral College to 286.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200411/ai_n8600552

Who knows what would have happened had the primary been held in California? Maybe Dean with all his appeal to diverse voters, his energy, and his 50-state strategy would have faced off with Bush. Maybe Dean would have had the courage to challenge the vote in Ohio and maybe, just maybe we could have won. We will never know.


By the way, while New Hampshire sided with Kerry in 2004 (barely), South Carolina also voted for Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections2004/2004President.html

Is it any surprise that our primary process, which takes place in relatively conservative states, results in relatively conservative candidates winning the Democratic nomination? No wonder Americans think that Republicans and Democrats are really pretty much the same party. The parties' national candidates are chosen by the same conservative voters every four years.

Let's break the mold and let some real Democrats decide who will be our next candidate. Maybe being able to choose a real liberal for president will get Democratic voters to the polls. Being able to vote for a right-wing conservative sure got Republican voters to the polls for Bush. And I am firmly convinced that we liberal Democrats far outnumber the right-wing Republicans. Our voters just feel they are not challenged or represented. So what's the use? We need to change our primary system.

[1monster]

14. I wish! But that won't happen.

[superkia]

34. If our votes arent counted, it doesn't matter who they bring.

I would rather be saying president Kerry than president Bush any day. I wouldn't mind president Kucinich either. If we americans make the votes, I think Kucinich stands for many issues that we here stand for.

[Truth2Tell]

52. Right

Better that we should clump together a bunch of big media, high delegate states in a short span.

That way we don't have to screw around with any of this "meet with actual voters" bullshit. The candidates don't have to waste a bunch of their precious time vetting actual issue positions or exchanging long winded, whatta they call em? Right, ideas.

Better that the winner is determined by bank-roll and Madison Avenue savvy. This is a TeeeVeee nation. Retail politics is so pre 9-11.

[HereSince1628]

3. We've also got to stop listing things in alphabetical order.

folks in Wisconsin and Wyoming must wade through over 40 abbreviations everytime they fill out an online form. In a country where all states are supposed to be equal, why is there only one rule used to order them? Because f**King Alabama and Alaska refuse to give up their special position.

[Norrin Radd]

11. On those form fields, just type the first letter of the state you want to choose.

[HereSince1628]

17. They don't always let you choose, and even DU uses the dogmatic

alphabetical order for listing state groups. I though progressives were CREATIVE???????

It's a chauvinistic conspiracy I tell you...CONSPIRACY!!!!

[JVS]

55. Order of admission to the union (in the case of the South, re-admission)

[msongs]

5. there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics (Twain)...

last time I looked at the constitution, it seemed to imply that all citizens had the right to vote. The proportional influence Iowar seems to have is not the fault of the people who vote there. It is rather the fault of the media and political establishment who grant the outcome an undue influence. Furthermore, a study of how much the Iowa caucuses are actually predictors of party nominees might reveal the outcome is not that accurate a predictor of party nominee.

And by the way, the truth may hurt a lot indeed, because regulating voting based on a person's ethnicity or race is illegal and racist. But don't let that stop you.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[HereSince1628]

7. "Iowar?" I thought that extra 'Arrr' was the birth right of the people of "Ohigher"

Or Arrrrr you taking a shot at Howarrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhd?

[ecstatic]

8. Regulating voting based on race...

That idea was not mentioned anywhere in my post. Iowa should not continually have the first say, for a variety of reasons. Give other states a chance. That's all.

[napi21]

6. I think some are making way too big a deal out of who's first!

If you think about it, wouldn't it be WORSE if California was first? It's certainly the most populace State, has residents from almost every race on the planet, but if THEY were first, the winner would be GUARANTEED the nomination! That's NOT the case with Iowa. It may be an indicator, and most candidates who win there do get a bounce, but they DO NOT always determine the winner!

I do believe the primaries should be moved closer together. I remember how much I hated it when I lived in Pa. and their primary was so late in the year, it didn't matter who you voted for (at the top of the ticket) because the Presidential candidate had already been chosen by a lot of other states!

I just this it's really stupid to be pushing primaries into January and possibly December!!!!!

[hfojvt]

59. yes, after all, it's also important

what's on second. and what about third base?

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Look at the data for New Hampshire...

talk about unrepresentative of the whole country. They have more moose than minorities.

[ecstatic]

33. LOL. Wow I didn't catch that, but you're right nt

[valerief]

13. Iowa doesn't look like America at all. It's like a foreign land, as foreign

a world to most of us as where our Congress lives and breathes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. Would you look an Iowan in the face and tell them that they don't look like YOU?

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Last time I was in Iowa, I was driving down a two lane road, and thought to myself: "Gee. This looks just like Nebraska."

What say you about Nebraska?

[KingFlorez]

15. And your point is?

Demographics aren't relevant here, this is just a primary schedule and winning Iowa primary doesn't guarantee the nomination. I fail to see what the big deal is, what difference does it make who goes first?

[RB TexLa]

19. And Manchester, NH (109,691) and Desmoines, IA (193,886) really give urbanites a voice early in the

process. :rofl:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

21. Except it doesn't mean shit

Do you really think that anyone in the history of the Democratic primary got swept into the nomination based only on their Iowa performance? If it had actually meant something, Tom Harkin should have gotten the nom in '92 by a landslide.

It's a long road. The only people who freak out about someone winning Iowa are the hardcore political junkies.

[NoPasaran]

22. I agree

We should go back to letting the unrepresentative state of New Hampshire have the first say, the way God and William Loeb intended.

[NuttyFluffers]

23. of course i agree. primary, elections, and everything should be done in 1 month

from beginning to end, all advertisements, campaigning, debates, etc. done in 1 month or less, like most other civilized nations. raise your money, have a whirlwind tour, count the votes, move on with life. if the citizens want to hold community meetings and canvas, that's their prerogative and unrelated. that way grassroots can compete with money because money cannot be everywhere at the same time, whereas real popular support actually has boots and hands on the ground to promote. it helps solve part of the money problem in politics.

[charlie]

24. Well, if nothing else

it might get the candidates off their stupid ethanol kick.

[cui bono]

25. Let's just keep it this time, since Edwards is beating the DLC Dems. eom.

[ThomWV]

26. Iowa doesn't pick shit. You let Florida or California go first and you alienate half the country

It is those of us in small rural states who vote later who have no say in who is selected.

[undeterred]

27. It should be WISCONSIN. We're really progressive and we'd pick FEINGOLD!

[mudesi]

28. Perhaps if people didn't allow the media to pick candidates for them...

Why is it that when someone takes Iowa, the rest of the country follows suit?

Just vote for the best candidate, regardless of the polls, regardless of who wind Iowa.

Dennis Kucinich, for example.

[Critters2]

39. Exactly. Why do people LET Iowa make the decision for them? nt

[Hissyspit]

29. The electoral vote initiative in California is a bigger concern right now. n/t

[many a good man]

30. But what will be lost?

Four years ago was the first time I watched the candidate events on C-SPAN in Iowa and NH. Candidates speaking at great length in front of small crowds of real people is so much better than the sound bite plagued "debates". It seems that after IA and NH all we see are huge rallies, mind numbing campaign ads and useless debates.

I agree that their significance should not be overstated but I hope we never lose this cherished part of American electoral politics.

[moondust]

31. FYI.

Before the ABC debate a week ago George Stephanopolous announced that ABC's most recent Iowa poll (7/29) had Barack Obama leading at 27% with Hillary and John Edwards close behind, both at 26%. This is much more ethnically and sexually balanced than any of the national polls.

Iowa has 57 delegates (and is a midwestern state).
New Hampshire has 30 (and is a northeastern state).
South Carolina has 54 (and is a southern state).
Nevada has 33 (and is a western state).

Florida has 210 delegates.
Texas has 228.
New York has 280.
California has 440.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Del.phtml


It's obvious where the true power lies and it's not in the first four small states. Your demographic assumptions are false.

[ecstatic]

32. I'm not

accusing Iowans of being prejudiced. Whose to say that a racially diverse electorate would vote for Obama and Clinton? Maybe those are not the preferred candidates of women and minorities?

[Hardrada]

35. Boo effing hoo.

I'm an Iowan and think we can ask quite intelligent questions. We don't thinkwe should run politics on some Nielsen rating. Otherwise we'll just have voters in their twenties living all together in some NYC apartment and trying to get laid all the time.

[RB TexLa]

36. Can't you ask intelligent questions of the candidates in May?

:shrug:

[Hardrada]

37. Who's listening by then?

O but you must have known this already.

[RB TexLa]

38. So what is it about the people in Florida or Louisiana or New Mexico that makes you think

they can't ask intelligent questions?

[Hardrada]

41. Do you think I really believe that?

[RB TexLa]

43. You had no problem giving your thoughts of voters in NYC, what about voters in East Carroll Parish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Carroll_Parish,_Louisiana

[Hardrada]

53. That was just hyperbole. Of course all should have an equal

chance at picking a nominee in an ideal world but this is not one of those worlds.
Convince us of some better system. For now, I like to see all the candidates up close.

[ecstatic]

40. I met an Iowan yesterday... lovely young lady

However, you guys voted for Bush last time. That alone should disqualify you from having the first say.

[losthills]

42. It's obvious to any thinking person

that all states should vote on the same day.

It is absurd and anti-democratic that we allow these dim-bulb redneck states to weed out the candidates before the rest of us are allowed to have our say.

This charade must be reformed, and the electoral college abolished if we are ever to reclaim our democracy...

[mondo joe]

44. Why does the Iowa primary "decide the Presidential nominee"?

Don't the other states have primaries?

Are the people in those other states compelled to vote as Iowa does?

[ecstatic]

49. Since 2000, our nominee has been whoever did the best in those states

All the cable news outlets need something to talk about 24 hours a day. Make no mistake: Whoever wins in those two states will be forced upon us as the nominee.

[mondo joe]

51. If other voters decide to vote based on those states, that's their own doing.

It's stupid, but it's their call - if that's what they're doing.

It could also be that doing best in those states is just a sign of doing well overall. Correlation is not causation.

[madfloridian]

45. Read this. Why all the sudden fear of Iowa and NH?

Two other states were added and others had a chance to apply.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/25/dnc-to-florida-democrats-not-so-fast/

"Basically, here’s what happened: last summer, the DNC approved a plan by which Iowa and New Hampshire remained in January, with Nevada and South Carolina also wedged into the early schedule to ensure that states in the South and West, with larger Black and Latino representation, had significance in the early primary process. (States had the ability to apply to the DNC to lobby for their selection as an early state; Florida did not seek such a move at the time.)

All the other states were told — and my understanding is that even Florida voted for this — that no one else got to hold a delegate-selecting primary before February 5. If they did, it would be mandatory and automatic that half their delegates would be eliminated from the Convention, with additional penalties possible including the loss of the entire delegation and — believe me when I tell you this is pretty serious — having the state bumped to the back of the Denver hotel selection pool.

Except Florida’s legislature wasn’t hearing that, and a bipartisan vote led to their attempts to claim a January 29 primary. So now Florida’s Democratic leaders have a choice: convince the legislature to move the date altogether; convert the primary from a meaningful delegate allocation process into a “straw poll” or “beauty contest”; or stay put and accept the consequences. (Oh, or sue the DNC. Great.)"

[DJKDJKDJK]

46. They disenfranchised all the university students by moving up their vote

This system is ridiculous.

Vote Kucinich, the bringer of real change.

[amandabeech]

47. Iowa is a swing state. It may also give us a clue as to which candidates

would do well in nearby Minnesota and Wisconsin, which have been on the edge recently, particularly Wisconsin.

I don't mind having a state that is marginal for us give an early opinion. It is the swing states that we must win, and I'd like to see who they prefer.

If we wanted to go to larger, more diverse swing-ish states early, I'd say Ohio and Florida would be good choices. Perhaps a western or southwestern state like Colorado or Arizona would also be a good choice for an early primary.

California will go Dem if we nominate Mike Gravel. We could run Jesus H. Christ himself in South Carolina and we'd get trounced. I don't mind if these places would have later primaries, because they're already locked up on a partisan basis.

[Neshanic]

50. When I watch CSpan and the Iowa shows, the crowd is lily white, I agree. It's time to stop the

absurdity of these two states calling the shots.

[Hardrada]

54. Well, THAT's a bit of reverse bigotry. Skin color

should make no difference. Isn't that what progressives are always saying?

[ecstatic]

56. Yeah, that's it.... reverse bigotry

:sarcasm:

[ComerPerro]

57. I've never voted in a Presidential Primary, and I doubt I ever will

[madfloridian]

58. Why all the attacks on Iowa and NH suddenly?

Why all the attacks on the DNC now?

[moondust]

60. Me first, daddy, or I'm not playing.

:cry:

[ecstatic]

61. Panic because we don't want a repeat of 2004

when out of nowhere Iowa decided that Kerry would be our nominee? :shrug:

[Critters2]

62. Oh, please.

The DLC decided Kerry would be your nominee, because they were scared to death of Dean. As they still are. I was a Dean precinct captain in Iowa in 2004, and couldn't believe the Kerryites who came out of the wood work. We hoped later primaries would vote for someone other than Kerry. But apparently the other states are made up of sheep who didn't realize you could actually vote.

If you wanted someone other than Kerry, you should've voted for someone other than Kerry.

[madfloridian]

63. But why now? For 08 the schedule is made.

This is meaningless sound and fury.