 |
Screw Iowa, Seriously |
 |
Since 1976, 75% of Iowa Democratic caucus winners went on to win the nomination. 134,000 Iowa Democrats are expected to caucus on Thursday. About 59 million Democrats voted in 2004. This means that about 2/10ths of 1 percent of Democrats will effectively decide the nominee.
New Hampshire, where the first primary will be held on Jan 8th, is effectively held captive by Iowa: 1-in-5 women said they were fully prepared to change their vote if their favorite candidate did not win Iowa.
Even worse, Iowa is the sixth whitest state in the country. Here are the breakdowns of under-representation:
- African Americans are poorly represented (2.3% of Iowa residents, 12.5% of U.S. residents).
- American Indians are poorly represented (0.3% of Iowa residents, 1% of U.S. residents).
- Asians are poorly represented (1.4% of Iowa residents, 4.3% of U.S. residents).
- Multiracial people are poorly represented (0.9 % of Iowa residents, 1.5% of U.S. residents).
- Hispanics and Latinos are poorly represented (3.7% of Iowa residents, 14.4% of U.S. residents).
- College graduates are poorly represented (24.5% of Iowa residents, 27.6% of U.S. residents).
Is this really a state Democrats want to give disproportionate influence to?
Unfortunately, none of the frontrunners are interested in doing anything about it.
“Sen. Clinton believes that Iowa and New Hampshire play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and that process should be protected.”
“The Iowa caucuses are crucial…because of instead of seeing us for a few seconds on television, they see us up close.”
“Iowa Caucuses give people a chance to lift the hood and kick the tires…they’re instincts are good…when they’re presented with good choices, they make the right decision.”
Even Howard Dean, who blasted Iowa’s role on Canadian television in 2000, was forced to change his tune as a candidate in 2004.
“I support the Iowa caucus, and I have already promised Gordon Fischer that if elected, the Iowa caucus will be first again in 2008.”
Will a Democratic leader ever step up and do anything about this? With the primary season getting longer each cycle, and presidential candidates completely dependent on a strong showing in the Hawkeye state, I wouldn’t count on it anytime soon.
I wouldn’t look to Democratic candidates to change things in an election year. Really, we should catch them all by surprise in 2009-2010 and start vocally demanding a change in the primary system.
That makes sense. I just wanted to keep it on people’s minds now as the media zeroes in on Iowa.
Of course. But I think you raise some important points that we should keep in mind for later down the road…when we bring them up again.
Speaking of race, according to that Census table, New Hampshire is the third whitest state.
Looks Obama just proved all that wrong.
Not that I was going to vote Obama in the first place, but if I were, there’s something about the quote you cited that would just about put me off of him. It reads like a G.W. quote, doesn’t it? Think of that weaselly voice Jon Stewart uses to impersonate Bush and read it again.
[...It] gives people a chance to lift the hood and kick the tires…[hehehe]
[Their,] their instincts are good…
when they%u2019re presented with good choices, they make the right decision.
[Now watch this swing.]
Ha, good point. I’d say he came across like that because he knew what he was saying wasn’t true.
Re: Obama’s quote, when has a politician ever said anything like, “we trust Iowans because they’re hella smarter than those rednecks in the South,” (or better, dumbassess in Texas) or, “I have no idea why we are here. There’s nothing but a bunch of undereducated white people, dead trees, and snow.”
The elected officials and party leadership have much larger political issues than the caucus system in Iowa. Let them tackle PAC funding, the inability of the current Democratic congress to stand up to the GOP, and the unification of the Democratic party in general to be effective. As a young white male, Josh should be pretty well represented by the Iowa system so I suggest he move on to spending his blogging time more effectively.
Yes, MUCH bigger issues like condemning Move On and naming post offices after Bill Clinton. There are a whole host of electoral issues that need to be addressed. This is just one of them.
Ah, I guess you are right about me being represented. Since I only care about people who look like me it works out pretty well, huh? Anything else you want to help me out with Ross? My stir-fry could probably use a little work.
Ross, I think you raise some important points. But a root cause of the “inability of the current Democratic congress to stand up to the GOP” has to be a lack of accountability of the party elite to its base. That lack of accountability is exacerbated by the many undemocratic factors that govern our primaries and elections. How can the party be unified and strong - and representative of ordinary people - if our primary system is so crazy? How can we have fair elections with electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail? Or the crazy electoral college system? Or widespread voter suppression? All these issues of process directly affect our ability to influence our leaders and hold them accountable.
Josh - Feh, here is to hoping your stir fry is not anything like your ability to convey rational arguments. I have seen some great looking premade “just add Tofu” kits at our local food co-op…. If you need help let me know.
Alex - While it is agreed that their “accountability is exacerbated by the many undemocratic factors” once they are elected and have the ability to represent their constituents something needs to happen. I am going to be caucusing tomorrow after I make some Pad Thai and hope the leader selected wins and can be as effective as the Republicans have been over the past 8 years in pushing their agenda. The Democrats will need at least that long to fix the sinking and looted ship we are sailing upon.
FYI: Go Obama!
I think that, broadly speaking, we are on the same page here. If you look back to our “primary endorsements” issue, you’ll see many Seminal authors endorsed Obama. We want to see a more liberal administration in power. But to get back to the issue, don’t you think a national or rotating primary system would be more fair than the current system - and more likely to promote good candidates who keep their promises?
I responded to you sarcastically because of the tone of your comment. Implying that my age or race disqualifies me from talking about an undemocratic, inequal system is offensive to me. The cheap shot about how I spend my blogging time indicates that you don’t want to have a serious discussion.
Talk about rational arguments all you want, but you are the one defending an undemocratic caucus system. If you want to talk about that, rather than dancing around the issue, I’d be glad to. Otherwise, have fun.
I agree that it would be more “fair” and thus truly democratic and a better representation of the population as a whole. To the extent that it would promote candidates who keep their promises, I think that limiting the ability for the lobbying community would facilitate more change for the good. Its a matter of priority in my mind…. If the heat was off Iowa it would also reduce my trips to the recycling center and free up some phone lines.
Fair enough. What I was trying to say originally, though, is that I don’t think you can isolate one factor - such as lobbyists - and say that addressing that would solve our problems. What makes our system undemocratic is not only each individual factor (questionable elections, outdated primary and electoral college systems, lobbyists, etc) but also the way these factors combine.
Your main concern seems to be “promoting candidates who keep their promises.” That is great, and something I’d certainly like to see as well, but I don’t think that is primarily an issue of electoral reform. To do that you need to reform the democratic party, for a start.
As I was writing this, Alex basically took the words out of my mouth. We need to do away with the electoral college, sort the primaries, publicly fund campaigns, use ranked choice or range voting, make sure the votes actually count, etc. I’m in no way saying that the Iowa caucuses are the biggest problem, just that they are one.
My main concern in this thread was to draw fire away from Iowa. I think the article in whole was weak and poorly thought out, especially when New Hampshire is more white than Iowa and Iowa is more highly populated than New Hampshire(not saying much. We can all feel good about agreeing on the broken systems currently in place so how about an article called - Our Sucky Electoral System.
But when an article has a title like “Screw Iowa, Seriously” I have a hard time believing the author want to have the “serious discussion” it was intended to solicit.
I think that people outside of Iowa who are still keenly interested in the outcomes there are feeling very left out.
Whoever wins in Iowa will probably receive a huge boost that could lead them to win in NH, and onward from there. Especially if Hillary wins Iowa, we may be treated to reports that the nomination process is essentially a done deal.
Josh wasnt meaning to target Iowans or Iowa, but rather speaking out of a frustration that is legitimate. Right now, Iowa symbolizes our sucky electoral system for some of us.
I think we’re mostly having a serious discussion here - I’m getting something out of it, at least.
A few reasons I was more concerned with Iowa than New Hamphire:
1. Iowa plays a much larger role in the process.
2. The caucuses don’t allow many people to vote (active duty military, disabled, 2nd shift workers, etc)
3. The way the caucuses are designed doesn’t allow for a secret ballot, opening the door to voter intimidation and worse, especially at smaller rural caucuses.
4. It is coming up first, and is on people’s minds right now.
The title was designed to get people’s attention (it worked), and doesn’t take away from the main point. Our system of selecting nominees is terribly designed, and as it stands now, we’re trapped.
The serious discussion I’d like to have is about how we can move away from this system in the future. As mentioned, that is part of a much larger discussion about a whole host of electoral reform issues that we care about.
I look forward to your participation in that discussion, Ross.
I recommend you all check out the latest project by RU Sirus: MondoGlobo.
“All political change starts with defiance of some authority, some established power structure that does not want to be weakened or eliminated. We are reminding concerned citizens of this simple fact, and bringing non-authoritarians together.”
http://mondoglobo.ning.com/