Skip to comments.Iowa should ditch caucuses,or we should ditch Iowa
Posted on 01/20/2012 8:22:21 AM PST by C19fan
oday the Iowa state GOP announced that Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney in this year's caucuses after all, but that they can't be totally sure because vote totals in eight precincts somehow went missing. Here's to hoping this results in a major rethinking of the caucus process, if not stripping Iowa of its first in the nation status altogether.
I've been a longtime critic of the outsized influence Iowa has in electing a president. Not only does it get showered with attention from candidates who voters in later states won't have a chance to support, but most of its population is apathetic about the process. Just roughly one out of every seven registered Republicans participated in this year's caucuses. And even in 2008, when there were hotly-contested races in both parties and record turnout, only 17 percent of registered Iowa voters took part.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
Iowa YOU'RE OUT.
The whole Caucus process smacks of back room/smoke filled room deal making. States should ditch Caucuses in favor of primaries where only registered voters of that particular party are allowed to vote and must be registered 90 days in advance of the primary.
For example any other relatively small state with a REAL, CLOSED primary should be first in line. Iowa has a Caucus, a strange type of town hall meeting type of primary open to members of either party, New Hampshire has an open primary as does South Carolina.
At what point does a Conservative Closed primary state become relevant for choosing our candidate?
Couldn’t agree more. Add New Hampshire to that list. The primary season is stacked in a ridiculous way that front ends small states that wind up picking candidates for later bigger states. This is the second primary in a row I feel I am being disenfranchised. I won’t donate to the Republican party until it changes.
I grew up in Iowa. It’s a strange and wonderful state. When the rest of the US was playing regulation 5 player girls basketball, Iowa was(and still is in some small towns) playing 6 player basketball, 3 players on each half court, and each player was not allowed on the other half. It consistently drew more fans than regular boys basketball.
You do have to give credit to the Democrats for figuring out how to game the system. They get to choose both party’s candidates.
Politics used to be about selecting the best person for the job and that person was the one who would get the most efficient and effective use from the hard-earned taxpayer’s dollars.
Political campaigns should be about discovering and proving the candidate’s ability to get the most efficient and effective use out of the taxper’s hard-earned dollars. What do we have now? Foreigners buying elections? Are they giving money to candidates because they’re interested in looking out for the American taxpayer? Hardly. They’re buying influence. For other nation’s use. Isn’t that treason?
And who cares who the best talker is? Anybody can talk a good fight. God, have we as a nation lost our common sense? Look at what the candidate has done. Look at what the candidate has done. Look at what the candidate has done. The wolf will promise a nation of sheep that he will lead them to greener pastures while him and his packmates are feeding on the herd. But wolves can’t bully tigers.
The current method is so flawed. We might as well go in alphabetical order . . . grouped either 5 or 10 at a time. LOL Then no one state would get all the attention and people like Santorum can’t spend an entire year in one state to claim a “late” victory. They also couldn’t concentrate their campaign treasure chest in negative ads in one state . . . IF they went that route, which they would, at least they’d have to spread it around a bit and what happened to Newt in IA would be less likely to happen. Maybe.
We should revamp the whole primary process.
5 primary dates with 10 regionally diverse states voting on the same day. 2 north. 2 south, 2 east, 2 west and 2 central. It would still serve to winnow the field but give a more accurate representation of what we the people want. plus CLOSE THE FREAKIN PRIMARIES!
I have no problem with Iowa, as such. The problem is with the process, and with the Establishment that sets up the process.
I presume that, even though Iowa is a relatively decent and honest state, they are still stuck with the Republican PARTY running things. That’s the problem.
The same with all these open primaries at the start of the primary season. The states set the rules, supposedly, but the DC Party sets the order of the primaries, and if the locals don’t obey, they lose their pork and perks.
New Hampshire not only is open, but there is no voter IDing, so they are open to out of staters, double voting, and all kinds of cheating, as well as Democrat crossovers. The RINO PARTY just loves that, so they keep New Hampshire near the top.
It was the same with District 23 in NY. The local party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava as the candidate, despite the Conservative Party’s threat to run another candidate. But those local party bosses work closely with the Party in DC, which quickly came in and supported Scozzafava, prefering to lose to a Democrat rather than have a pro-life Conservative win.
Until that corruption is cleaned out, there will be no real changes in the process. Sarah Palin did a housecleaning in Alaska, but unfortunately after she left the DC Establishment let the Corrupt Bastards Club right back in again. It won’t change until the party dies or a VERY STRONG AND MORAL leader brooms it all out and keeps it out long enough to prevent a return.
The choice before Iowa should be made clear: either they reform their voting system to one that's fair, democratic and competently run, or they lose their anointed status.
These are the final nails in the coffin for the Iowa First Caucus. The Iowa GOP brings in $100's of thousands of dollars from the Straw Poll and the Caucus. Their TV Stations, Radio Stations, Newspapers thrive on the Ad dollars brought in from the Presidential Race every four years. The only reason we have had to put up with Lamar Alexander and Rick Santorum and others that should never have been in the race is because of Iowa.
It is way past time to end this sham. If they can't even produce a vote that is accurate and verifiable it is over.
I agree. Caucuses are a sad joke. The party elite like them because they think it gives the rabble the illusion that their opinion matters but keeps them 4 levels apart from any important decision making.
One idea I had is you can have both, a closed binding primary and caucuses. Only let people who have attended 2 or 3 consecutive caucuses vote in it.
Old, have you been to an Iowa caucus? Never saw much smoke.
I too grew up in rural Iowa. I played guard in a zone defense in Junior high. I often try and explain this game to people. Loved it.
Iowa went democrat in the general pres. election every time since 1988, except 2004. NH went dem every time since 1992 except for 2000. If the first rounds of the primary are so important, why are they held in states that actually voted against the GOP ticket 5/6 or 4/5 in the last elections? How does that make sense for getting the guy that most represents the GOP platform?
Before 1988-1992, both states went pub in general pres election going back to at least 1972. I think it’s time to give it a rest.
I was a city slicker. Grew up in Waterloo, population 65,000
Only if we toss New Hampshire as well. At least this year Iowa tried to save us from Rombama and McNewt.
repubs need to insist on closed primaries/caucuses across the board. I’ve been saying this since 1991..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.