Iowa is a bell-weather state for nothing...

[kentuck]

Especially in Republican Party politics, it is less than meaningless. The toughest nuts in the evangelical wing of the Republican Party live and vote in Iowa. In the big picture, they have shown their votes to be worthless in the national picture.

Former challengers, such as Rick Santorum, Patrick Buchanan, and Pat Robertson have defeated the favorites in the race for the Presidency, only to disappear when more sane voters in other states cast their votes.

Will Ben Carson defeat Donald Trump and others in the Iowa caucus? Probably. It would be predictable. But what does it mean historically? Nothing. Nada.

[montanacowboy]

1. Our Voting System SUCKS

Iowa and NH are in no way imaginable comparable to the national electorate. Who cares who wins in that fundy hothouse?

And by the way, we need to abolish the frigging electoral college

[Snobblevitch]

13. Why should the electoral college be abolished?

The FF thought the vote should be proportional so the large population states could not take over the national vote. Personally, I would not like Florida and Texas to gain influence because of their large population. States like Wyoming, Alaska, and South Dakota (traditional republican leaning states) still only have three electoral votes.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. That's why we have the Senate, not the electoral college.

The electoral college exists to allow the rich to deny the vote of the hoi polloi id they voted for some populist instead of the candidate the gentry wants.

[Snobblevitch]

30. That may have been the intent,

but that's not how it has worked out. Has the electoral collage ever not done what the people voted, other than a few, lone electors?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. It depends on what you mran by 'what the people voted'.

Any non-proportionality of electors to actual votes is 'not doing what' some people voted. Any state that simply awards all of its electoral votes to the person who 'won' the state, for instance. Or simply the fact that electors from one state and electors from another represent varying numbers of individual votes. By it's very existence it circumvents true democracy, advantaging the people of one state over another depending upon their ratio of electors to populace, and disadvantaging the people who voted for the 'loser' of a given winner take all state by not representing them at all.

[Snobblevitch]

34. I think there are three states that award

electoral votes proortionally. That is ok by me, but coming from a relatively small state, I am in favor of the current system. Any votes over 50.1% don't matter the way it mostly is now. That's how democracy works.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. but when you add those together, you can wind up at crossed purposes.

When the person with more than 50 percent of the popular vote can lose to the person with more electoral votes. And that's not democracy. That's republicanism.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

20. The fact that we let Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence is idiotic

We should have a 2-3 tier national primary. Round 1 narrows to no more than four candidates; round 2 to no more than two candidates; and round 3 (if necessary) gets us to the nominee.

And I agree -- one person; one vote -- all the votes get counted, and we have a President. The EC's time has come and gone.

[davidpdx]

29. Well put

Making certain states the first in the nation is ridiculous and needs to come to an end.

Eventually the presidential election needs to be by popular vote. Until that happens I would also like to see a rotating primary by region. Pair states up by region maybe three to five per primary:

West: Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California

Mountain: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado

Southwest: Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas

Etc......

[Ed Suspicious]

2. That said, I'd still take a Bernie win there.

[peacebird]

26. Me too!

[herding cats]

3. What was surprising to me was that Trump ever had the lead there.

They chose Huckabee in 2008 and Santorum in 2012, it's not difficult to see what their tastes lean to there.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

21. It's like two states

For the most part, greater Des Moines, and the mid-size industrial towns east of I 35 lean blue. The rural towns -- especially those west of 35 -- are deeply socially conservative, and vote fundy red. Carson has polled well in Iowa for the entire race.

[LonePirate]

4. Agreed. It is time to replace IA and NH as the early voting states.

CO and PA (or OH) would be far better first in the nation states.

[Snobblevitch]

14. Out of curiosity,

why did you suggest Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio?

[LonePirate]

15. All three are far more representative of the US than both IA and NH.

The media would have Americans believe all three are swing states although OH is really the only swing state of the trio, and it is not much of one. CO and PA are solidly blue in presidential elections and will remain so for years to come.

GA, FL and VA would be alternatives if you want a red state trending blue, a swing state trending blue and a blue state becoming even more blue, respectively. No swing states are trending red, not even NC. So that leaves meaningless deep red states or red states that are slowly trending blue (like TX, for example). Any of these states have populations that are far more similar to America as a whole than either IA or NH.

[Snobblevitch]

17. Why don't other states move up their primaries or caucases?

I don't know much about NH, but I grew up in southern Minnesota and Iowa is maybe a bit red, but I think their values are solid. They kept re-electing Tom Harkin.

[LonePirate]

18. The two parties typically threaten to penalize other states if they change dates plus ...

candidates bow to tradition for some reason. The current system is screwed up royally.

[Snobblevitch]

19. Apparently, the two parties fear change

more than they fear the status quo.

[emulatorloo]

5. I agree with you on Repub caucus but not on Dem caucus.

Republican caucus is just a fun night for them to pick the craziest Christian. Never predictive and as you say if Carson wins that's meaningless.

Dems take the caucus very seriously and have indeed picked the Dem who ends up getting the Nomination.

[kentuck]

6. True.

The Democratic caucus is important.

[former9thward]

9. Not always.

They picked Harkin in 1992 (Clinton got 2.8%) and Richard Gephardt in 1988 (Dukakis was 3rd)..

[Algernon Moncrieff]

22. Yes but...

Last edited Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Harkin was their favorite son, and Gephardt (like Obama) was from a neighboring state.

[DFW]

25. I'm thinking there's a typo in there somewhere? n/t

[Algernon Moncrieff]

31. Oops

Gephardt is from the neighboring state. Fixed now. Thanks!

[DFW]

36. No sweat--happens to us all sooner or later! n/t

[Journeyman]

7. This is why I favor dividing the nation into 6 electoral districts, then rotating which votes first…

Instead of the present, flawed process, where people in Iowa of all places have a disproportionate influence on who leaves the race early and who's seen as a "frontrunner," I favor dividing the nation into 6 electoral districts instead and the choice of which district should vote first would rotate among them, so every 24 years each of us would have an opportunity to vote first in the Presidential primary.

All states in an electoral district would have their primaries on the same day. This way, campaigns would focus on a select geographic region -- costs would be lower, there wouldn't be as much travel required, and the media buys would be more focused as well, since neighboring states would be addressed at the same time.

There'd be the added benefit that citizens of each district could expect (indeed, demand) that politicians address the regional issues of their concern as well as the national issues, thereby denying the candidates the opportunity to hide behind national platitudes instead of answering specific questions important to a select electorate.

If the primaries were held every 3 weeks, the primary season could be over in some 3 to 4 months, which might help focus every voter's attention earlier in the process.

But it'll probably never happen. Too many vested interests with too much at stake in the present, crippled system.

[SoCalDem]

8. Hey..you stole MY plan

Every district has rural/city/north-ish/south-ish

[KoKo]

11. K&R..

[spanone]

12. don't forget huckabee, he won a few back....

[bullwinkle428]

16. You would think someone with a YOOOOOGE brain like Trump's would

have figured that out by now, but apparently not.

[bluedigger]

23. It's kind of a bell-weather for averageness.

Iowa is middle America more than just geographically (more or less), but demographically as well. A lot of new products get introduced in the Des Moines area before going national for market research.

[betterdemsonly]

24. It's the caucus structure, not the state.

if Iowa had a primary system, republicans would elect more mainstream candidates. All the caucus states gops nominate fundamentalists. The democrats here are more reflective for whatever reason.

[Zen Democrat]

28. Winning Iowa is a kiss of death for Republicans. It's a bell-weather for Democrats.

[kath]

33. B-e-l-l-w-e-t-h-e-r.

Thus endeth the spelling lesson.