Hey, Iowa, we the rest of the country are FED UP with your stoopid a-hole caucus crap

[UTUSN]

(and I didn't add an exclamation point)

The whole "electoral" system is stupifyingly a-hole. Can we just bring it all down to 3 mos of ELECTIONS - no, that would be too much to ask.

[rurallib]

1. couldn't agree with you more - BUT

it brings a shitload of money into our state, so they won't give up easy.

[UTUSN]

2. You're from Iowa, my friend?!1 I did not know that. n/t

[rurallib]

5. 'tis true - eastern Iowa - its 2012 here

western iowa it's like 1935

[IowaGuy]

3. misplaced anger....

It's the Republican & Democratic parties that want it this way, there is no federal law requiring this.
The individual parties can choose any way they want to pick their candidates...they make their own rules.
Nothin' sayin' you have to pay any attention to either party or you can choose another party or you can join either the Democratic party or Republican party, work to become a delegate to your local state convention and work on changing the rules.
This procedure was voted on by the state parties in all 50 states (and maybe even Puerto Rico). Iowa has no magic powers to make them decide or vote for this or any other process.
Sitting around and in your pajamas and ranting at the computer monitor isn't going to change anything in any way to make you happy.

[UTUSN]

4. Yeah, I know that TONS of my frustration with our electoral CRAP dates to the sainted McGOVERN

(O.K., *that* ought to get me points!1)

[IowaGuy]

8. Yeah, I understand some of the frustration....

I personally am not so invested in the whole Iowa has to go first thing. I got no problem with changing the system so other regions of the country could go first...in fact I think it would be healthy.

I just haven't really seen the proposal for a change, that would allow underfunded candidates from smaller states at least a shot at getting the nomination. Money drives the process so much now, and most of the proposals I've seen would demand that a candidate be able to come up with the scratch for an expensive multi-state media blitz. The campaigns would be carefully coordinated scripted shows. I don't see that as improvement over the way it is now where they are basically forced to get on the ground and talk to real people in an unscripted manner for a few weeks...yeah, it can be chaotic, messy, clownish and sometimes outright bizarre. But it tells you something about the way they are, that in no way could be characterized by 30 second commercials (positive or negative).

I would be interested in hearing any suggestions you may have to improve the process.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Lottery among all states for first primary/caucus with state selected 2-3 weeks before actual vote.

That would probably go a long way toward preventing excessive influence of one or two states in every single presidential election cycle.

[JBoy]

6. By comparison, federal elections in Canada must last "at least" 36 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada#Length_of_election_campaigns

The elections in 1997, 2000 and 2004 were exactly 36 days.

The longest ever in Canada, in 1926, lasted 74 days.


Even 36 days is too long. "Lemme friggin' vote."