Credit: Bullshit, the movie.
The attention being given to the opinions of a few tens of thousands politically elite midwesterners today does not serve the interest of our national democracy. It serves the interests of the Parties and the handful of men who control them.
These men decide who can attend the caucuses, the procedures that will push their votes in one direction or another and, to a significant degree, what the results will be. The only news of interest that can come out of this revolting example of the limits to our democracy is if anyone other than the insider favorites win with anything less than an overwhelming majority.
Markos hits it right on the head today:
There’s a conceit in Iowa that the only people who have a problem with Iowa’s undemocratic and undeserved vanguard position in the primary calendar are its losing campaigns. The fact is, the whole process stinks, and demands for reform — which made some headway after 2004 — will now be stronger than ever.
Charley said something similar here last month, and I fulminated in November.
The question is: what can be done: ignore the results? Give the insider favorites (Senator Clinton and … whom for the Republicans?) a 20-point advantage and spin a loss for them if they score anything less? Continue to rail futilely against the status quo while the Party brokers chuckle knowingly, smile, and flip to CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC?
Isn’t this an argument FOR getting involved? You call them “politically elite.” But it seems to me that the selection process for Iowa’s caucus isn’t all that much different from the selection process that Mass Dems have for their delegate selection on a state level. (Granted, the “viability” thing is a little weird). You get involved and try to get yourself chosen as a delegate. If a party can’t elect the candidate it wants through the individual members of the party, through the rules they choose – what’s the point of even being in a party?
<
p>Sometimes we like to think of this stage in a national election like it’s the playoffs. The Democratic Division and the Republican League candidates play for the top spot, and the division champs meet in the SuperBowl in November. But that’s not really what it is.
<
p>”The party” (made up of party members, cynically called “insiders”) choose who their candidate is, state by state, in a process that makes the most sense to them. Is it supremely and purely “democratic”? No. But I’m not sure it’s supposed to be.
I would just add that the concept of viability isn’t completely foreign to us either. To be a candidate for constitutional office in the state primary you need to have received 15% of the delegate vote at the convention.
<
p>I’d prefer a primary myself, but suspect that if I lived in Iowa I would look forward to participating in these every four years.
The problem is really how much people in later states vote based on how the early states go. Why do so many people vote for whoever wins the first primary? If people made rational choices when voting in primaries, it wouldn’t matter which state went first.
<
p>Of course, the real problem is the corporate media and how they spin everything. Busy people don’t generally have enough time to do the research required to make rational decisions. This allows the media to have a large impact on public opinion and the outcome of elections.
<
p>If you really want to take part in diminishing Iowa’s role, don’t look at the results. Don’t post anything about them. Don’t read other peoples diaries or comments about them. If you don’t think they should matter, why would you help make them matter?
<
p>If you really want a system where candidates campaign state by state, but the early states don’t have a disproportionate effect on the results, you should advocate for secret ballot primaries in every state with the results kept secret until after all states have voted.
…nor is it NH and their primary…the problem is THE DAMN FRONTLOADING of everything.
<
p>There used to be weeks in between Iowa and NH and a couple of weeks between NH and something else. Then it was wittled down to a week between Iowa and NH and a couple of weeks between NH and a multi-primary Tuesday.
<
p>Now we have 5 FRIGGING days between Iowa and NH and then 3 weeks between NH and a MEGA SUPER Tuesday.
<
p>We used to have time to colletively cathc our breath and think about what’s happening. Now we’re just caught standing in a Level 5 Political Hurricane and we all get blasted.
<
p>We need to space these damn things out over time again…and make it a 4 or 5 month Primary season.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io…
<
p>http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io…
<
p>This I love:
<
p>This is the whole genius of our Iowa caucus system. Unlike other states where voters merely cast a ballot for a candidate, we get together with our friends and neighbors and state our case. We ask the tough questions on the crucial national issues confronting all Americans. For Democrats, there are questions like, “which candidate has the best ethanol subsidy program?” and “will they allow video poker in the local ethanol plant?” and “do they support Social Security debit cards for seniors to play the video poker machines in the local ethanol plant?” On the GOP side, caucus goers will be asking, “which candidate has the best ethanol subsidy program?” and “how about replacing those Godless high school biology textbooks with 100% corn-based bibles?”