A big “Amen, Sister!” to Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, who asks the question so many Floridians and others would like to know, “Who Elected Iowa?”
The caucuses draw a small, unrepresentative sample of a small, unrepresentative state…
…[M]ost Iowans view the caucuses as an obscure art practiced by an elect few. “Usually I don’t go, because I’m afraid I’m going to get there and feel like a dummy,” one man on Ahn’s list confides.
And speaking of dummies, I was amazed to see the decision facing one Iowan.
Kay Baccam, 38, who works at an Iowa spice plant, said she liked Thompson but was leaning toward Clinton in part because of her gender.
“She would be the first woman (president) in history. That’s a good role model for kids and women,” she said.
Who winnows down their choices to Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton? Really.
Besides — and I don’t know a thing about how it actually works, but — it sounds like the Democratic caucuses are separate from the Republicans ones. And in the Democratic caucus, if your candidate doesn’t get at least 15 percent of the vote, you have to pick someone else.
Political reporters, myself included, get misty over the notion of neighbors gathering on a cold winter night to hash out differences over who is the best candidate. But the caucus process also serves to disenfranchise…
The bizarre rules of the Democratic contest further distort the results. (Republicans employ a more straightforward method: The candidate with the most votes wins.) Why should a candidate who fails to meet the 15 percent threshold of viability walk away empty-handed? Why should the final outcome depend on how those losing campaigns decide where to throw their backing when, in caucus-speak, nonviable preference groups realign for a second round? No wonder the caucus process makes ordinary people’s heads hurt…
And perhaps the most important question: Given all this, why do we in the media invest the caucuses with such make-or-break significance?
When Florida Democrats were placed under a campaign blackout as punishment for the state legislature changing our primary date, we were told it was essential to the electoral process to preserve the system that lets Iowa and New Hampshire, two of our whitest states, choose first. I have never understood the rationale for this boneheaded move, but I believe it was brought to us by the same folks who sit in Congress now — unable to do anything different, ineffectual and inaudible, and wondering why the Republicans always win.
- Topic: News & Comment
- Topics: Congress, Fox News
[...] Pensito Review placed an interesting blog post on Iowa Caucuses, Like the Electoral College, Are IrrelevantHere’s a brief overview [...]
[...] Pensito Review placed an observative post today on Iowa Caucuses, Like the Electoral College, Are IrrelevantHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
[...] Pensito Review placed an interesting blog post on Iowa Caucuses, Like the Electoral College, Are IrrelevantHere’s a brief overview [...]
The whole process is BROKEN. Or, should I say it’s FIXED? Let’s face it, the whole damn mess that is called American politics needs to be completely dismantled and rebuilt. ALL of the Represtatives, Senators and Congressmen need to be fired and NEVER again allowed to partake in American politics, even as advisers. They could hold civil service jobs, but not in any political way, shape or form. Then the government could be rebuilt from the ground up while strictly adhereing to the Constitution. Until this happens, FORGET about fairness, justice, reason or pity.
I think we should ditch the Constitution and start over with a parliamentary system, which is the system used by every democracy in the world but ours and the Philippines.
Just for starters:
- No presidential elections ever — prime minister is elected by his or her colleagues from the parliament.
- The prime minister can be recalled at any time.
- Elections can be held outside the rigorous every-two-years rule we have.
- Campaigning only lasts five weeks.
- Every cabinet member is a member of parliament and thus subject to the voters’ will.
- Smaller, more representative districts.
- Easily accommodates many more than two parties.
- No Senate.
- No Executive Branch.
[...] Pensito Review – Iowa Caucuses, Like the Electoral College, Are Irrelevant: “Florida Democrats were told our campaign blackout was essential to the electoral process, to preserve the system that lets Iowa and New Hampshire — two of our whitest states — choose first.” [...]
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President arises from the winner-take-all rule (currently used by 48 of 50 states) under which all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state. If the partisan divide in a state is not initially closer than about 46%-54%, no amount of campaigning during a brief presidential campaign is realistically going to reverse the outcome in the state. As a result, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns in voters of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground†states. As a result, 88% of the money and visits (and attention) is focused on just 9 states. Fully 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. More than two-thirds of the country is left out.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has 366 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 12 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, New Jersey, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com