1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Why Iowa?

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by ASU2003, Oct 23, 2011.

  1. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    http://whyiowa.org/

    With all the debate about scheduling and if a candidate loses the first three primaries their chances of making a comeback are almost nil, why does Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina get to choose every 4 years? Shouldn't a different set of three states get a chance to go first? Should it be a lottery based system where they don't know what states it will be until December? Should the democrats pick Oregon, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Mexico to get a 'real' democrat instead of the one that can win in the early (less liberal) primary states.

    Here is a calendar for 2012 and they have some good historical maps:
    http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2012-presidential-primary-calendar_26.html
     
  2. Derwood

    Derwood Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    I think the primary system is completely broken. Every state has a different system (different rules, different procedures, etc.) Some would say "states rights!", but I believe a federal election should have a unified set of rules. In fact, I think we should just have one "Super Tuesday" or whatever where all 50 states hold their primaries simultaneously. There is no reason (outside of "tradition", the dirtiest of words) to keep the system the way it is right now
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. samcol

    samcol Getting Tilted

    Location:
    indiana
    i agree it should all happen on one day. i suppose it wasn't as big of a problem back in the day but as it stands now the few early states get to decide the outcome of elections which isn't really giving every state an equal say.
     
  4. fflowley

    fflowley Don't just do something, stand there! Donor

    If we took Iowa out of first primary position we could also get rid of all the absurd industrial farming subsidies that are kept in place by pandering politicians.
     
  5. MSD

    MSD Very Tilted

    Location:
    CT
    Let them have it. What else does Iowa have?
    Oh, right, that.

    I would love a nationwide super Tuesday that's a Federal holiday (wouldn't it be nice if it were a paid vacation day for everyone from the executives down to the hourly folks at your local stores?) to see the clusterfuck that would be national primaries.
     
  6. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    I think the states should retain the rights to set up their primaries internally however they see fit. Letting them set the date, though, does subvert the influence of those who choose to have their primaries later. Although if we're going to talk about timing, the entire campaign season is just too long. We need to condense the whole thing into 90 days or less so that our representatives can spend more time, you know, actually doing the jobs they were elected to do.

    I'm thinking all primaries in the first full week of September, A secondary primary the first week in October (between the top two candidates in each party) and then the real deal come November.