Aa
Iowa's $200-Per-Vote Caucuses Reward Negatives, Nastiness, Narrow Thinking
Des Moines—The Republicans who would be president, the super PACs and the surrogates had already spent more than $12 million on television ads—almost half of them negative—before the final weekend leading up to Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses.
That doesn’t count the thousands of radio ads, mailings, lighted billboards in Des Moines and costs for staff.
Add it all up and there is a good chance that, when all is said and done Tuesday night, the candidates will have spent $200 a vote to influence the roughly 110,000 Iowans who are expected to participate in the GOP caucuses.
And the really unsettling thing is that the caucuses are just for show.
While the results may so damage some candidates that their runs for the presidency will be finished, they will not actually produce any delegates to the Republican National Convention.
That’s because, as the Des Moines Register notes, “Iowa delegates are not bound to vote for a specific candidate at the national convention, and no percentage of delegates is given to any one candidate (on caucus night).” Iowa Republican Party Executive Director Chad Olsen told the paper that the GOP caucus acts more as a “temperature gauge” of how Iowans feel about the candidates, and convention delegates use the results to inform their decision.
Seriously? All this for an glorified straw poll?
That’s the problem with the caucus system, which operates on an only slightly better model on the Democratic side.
Huge amounts of money are spent to influence a very small percentage of the electorate—less than 20 percent of Iowans who are likely to vote Republican in November will participate in Tuesday’s caucuses, and most of them will leave after the balloting finishes. An even smaller number of Iowans will begin the process of choosing representatives to county conventions, who in turn elect delegates to district and state conventions at which Iowa’s national delegates are actually selected.
Ultimately, party insiders are all but certain to form the delegation and choose how to vote at the national convention.
I don’t begrudge Iowa a place at the start of the calendar. In fact, I prefer that Midwesterners start things. But the caucuses are not the right way to begin.
The progressive movement of a century ago fought for open primaries, where all voters could easily participate and where the power of political bosses—and, ideally, outside money—could be overwhelmed by popular democracy.
There are good arguments to be made that primaries no longer hold out such promise, and I am not suggesting that open primaries will in and of themselves cure all that ails our politics. But the Iowa campaign of 2012 confirms that the caucuses are more prone to being warped by money and by rules that favor party bosses.
Iowa maintains a caucus system not because it is the best way to choose a nominee but because its first-in-the-nation status depends on an longstanding arrangement with New Hampshire, which claims the right to hold the first primary. Under the deal, Iowa can go first, so long as it does not hold a primary. Unfortunately, that means Iowa must hold caucuses. And the caucuses are a dysfunctional way to begin the process.
The parties have lacked the courage to demand a reform of this arrangement. But they should do so before the 2016 race begins because the presidential nominating process should not be defined by caucuses—in Iowa or anywhere else.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165384/iowas-200-vote-caucuses-reward-negatives-nastiness-narrow-thinking
That doesn’t count the thousands of radio ads, mailings, lighted billboards in Des Moines and costs for staff.
Add it all up and there is a good chance that, when all is said and done Tuesday night, the candidates will have spent $200 a vote to influence the roughly 110,000 Iowans who are expected to participate in the GOP caucuses.
And the really unsettling thing is that the caucuses are just for show.
While the results may so damage some candidates that their runs for the presidency will be finished, they will not actually produce any delegates to the Republican National Convention.
That’s because, as the Des Moines Register notes, “Iowa delegates are not bound to vote for a specific candidate at the national convention, and no percentage of delegates is given to any one candidate (on caucus night).” Iowa Republican Party Executive Director Chad Olsen told the paper that the GOP caucus acts more as a “temperature gauge” of how Iowans feel about the candidates, and convention delegates use the results to inform their decision.
Seriously? All this for an glorified straw poll?
That’s the problem with the caucus system, which operates on an only slightly better model on the Democratic side.
Huge amounts of money are spent to influence a very small percentage of the electorate—less than 20 percent of Iowans who are likely to vote Republican in November will participate in Tuesday’s caucuses, and most of them will leave after the balloting finishes. An even smaller number of Iowans will begin the process of choosing representatives to county conventions, who in turn elect delegates to district and state conventions at which Iowa’s national delegates are actually selected.
Ultimately, party insiders are all but certain to form the delegation and choose how to vote at the national convention.
I don’t begrudge Iowa a place at the start of the calendar. In fact, I prefer that Midwesterners start things. But the caucuses are not the right way to begin.
The progressive movement of a century ago fought for open primaries, where all voters could easily participate and where the power of political bosses—and, ideally, outside money—could be overwhelmed by popular democracy.
There are good arguments to be made that primaries no longer hold out such promise, and I am not suggesting that open primaries will in and of themselves cure all that ails our politics. But the Iowa campaign of 2012 confirms that the caucuses are more prone to being warped by money and by rules that favor party bosses.
Iowa maintains a caucus system not because it is the best way to choose a nominee but because its first-in-the-nation status depends on an longstanding arrangement with New Hampshire, which claims the right to hold the first primary. Under the deal, Iowa can go first, so long as it does not hold a primary. Unfortunately, that means Iowa must hold caucuses. And the caucuses are a dysfunctional way to begin the process.
The parties have lacked the courage to demand a reform of this arrangement. But they should do so before the 2016 race begins because the presidential nominating process should not be defined by caucuses—in Iowa or anywhere else.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165384/iowas-200-vote-caucuses-reward-negatives-nastiness-narrow-thinking
Brice I have to say that that is one of the things that absolutely fascinates me when it comes to US politics. The things that are discussed are just so completely different then what happens here. For example..you never hear a thing about our leaders spouses or families. In fact, I could not even name our Prime Minister's wife. Wouldn't recognize her if I tripped over her on the street. Seriously. I also have no clue what religion he is or if he attends church at all. I don't know if he smoked pot in high school, where he went to school or even if he went to school (I assume he did..lol). None of these things are ever ever mentioned. I also dont' know where he stands on social issues such as gay marriage or abortion. I do know where he stands on issues such as our economy, immigration, etc. etc. And honestly...I'm sort of glad for that. I personally think (and no offense intended to anyone here, this is just my opinion) that the rest of it just confuses the issue. I only want or need to know...can he get the job done (personally, I don't think so, but that's another story..ha).
I think Bernie Sanders has a petition to overturn the Citizens United deal. It sure has gotten nasty really quick. Now they(candidates) can have the super paks dole the dirt and claim they know nothing about it. I dont think that is right at all. We should know if a candidate is throwing that kind of dirt. I gotta laugh tho at Newt. He voted for the citizens united ruling and was the first to be on the recieving end . Im not thinkin he is likin it much now? I have no sympathy for him. If he had the funds he would have been the first one doing it, imo.
I'd like to see it done here adgal, but I doubt it will ever happen. This is just too much of a popularity contest. It's a contest about who is better than whom. It's about ones morals and how steadfast they are, and any of those aspects can detract from the other.
One thing that sticks in my craw is Gingrich saying he will balance the budget. Newt worked for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and they are under water. Okay, maybe he wasn't balancing the check book there, but it has his name all over it.
We as human beings are a weird sort. We all judge folks under different criteria. It is interesting to see what people will be for or against.
One thing that sticks in my craw is Gingrich saying he will balance the budget. Newt worked for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and they are under water. Okay, maybe he wasn't balancing the check book there, but it has his name all over it.
We as human beings are a weird sort. We all judge folks under different criteria. It is interesting to see what people will be for or against.
Yes, adgal, I think there should be a limit both to what they can spend and to how long they campaign for.
Brice:
"These candidates are trying to tell you and I that they feel what we are going through, then dole out millions upon millions of dollars to place in a popularity contest?"
You hit the nail on the head.
Brice:
"These candidates are trying to tell you and I that they feel what we are going through, then dole out millions upon millions of dollars to place in a popularity contest?"
You hit the nail on the head.
We capped what politicians can spend here. We no longer really get the down and dirty negative ad's etc. I like it and am glad we did it. Do you think that would be a good idea in the US? I know the stakes are much higher in determining your President vs. our Prime Minister, but still think it a good thing. They now spend their money on talking about real issues vs. slandering the others.
Kind of an interesting article. Thanks for posting it O. The last 2-3 paragraphs precisely explain how I feel regarding the current process.
The amount of money being thrown around on this meaningless barometer is so perplexing to me. These candidates are trying to tell you and I that they feel what we are going through, then dole out millions upon millions of dollars to place in a popularity contest? I don't get that.
With that in mind, I'll bring up Bachmann who placed real well, in fact won a barometer poll in Iowa back in August. Boy, the tides sure turned on Michelle, didn't they? And in the end, these poll's really don't mean a thing. Squat.... With Bachmann out, perhaps Perry on the way, we now have Santorum rising from the ashes?
Stop the insanity! Can we just have our country back, please?
The amount of money being thrown around on this meaningless barometer is so perplexing to me. These candidates are trying to tell you and I that they feel what we are going through, then dole out millions upon millions of dollars to place in a popularity contest? I don't get that.
With that in mind, I'll bring up Bachmann who placed real well, in fact won a barometer poll in Iowa back in August. Boy, the tides sure turned on Michelle, didn't they? And in the end, these poll's really don't mean a thing. Squat.... With Bachmann out, perhaps Perry on the way, we now have Santorum rising from the ashes?
Stop the insanity! Can we just have our country back, please?
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
