I need to be educated

[rockybelt]

The Iowa caucus and its ramifications are diametrically opposed to what I would consider to be a democracy. How can you consider this country to be a democratic society when roughly 10% of the population of the United States decide who is the viable candidate from each party? How in the world can so few people determine who it is that I am supposed to vote for? You have candidates being denied space at the debate podiums so we do not even get to hear what their views are on subjects that are vital to our nation. We have candidates that are dismissed because they have not raised enough money to be viable to Iowans. Yet all of those candidates that are supported by big business and big government receive all the attention that anyone could possibly want. Mainstream Media also weighs in with favorable comments with whomever it is that they want to see elected.

I don't want less than 10% of the people in the United States deciding just who the hell I should vote for. That is not in the best interest of a democratically controlled society.

Why do we not have, if we actually need one, a national caucus to determine who is to be on the ballot. Better yet, why do we not have all the candidates that meet the qualifications to run for office on a primary ballot? Why do we eliminate candidates on a caucus vote by Iowa residents? This is absolutely ridiculous. Equal rights for candidates? This Iowa caucus is so complicated that it is entirely too easy to pre-determine the outcome of this caucus. Just listen to anybody who thinks they really know about the caucus. They are confused about the entire thing. There are those who are not confused and these are the people that have influence over this travesty of democracy.

This is controlled so as the candidates that the establishment want to run, will run in the general election. This is not a democracy based on the free choice of a candidate. This is manipulation to the nth degree.

Now, educate me as to why I am wrong.

[LostinVA]

1. You're right -- no snark from me

[no name no slogan]

2. A national caucus/primary also has some unfairness to it

If we have a national primary all on one day, then candidates will only concentrate on the most populous states-- which means California and New York, which do not represent the entire country (contrary to what they may think). Candidates will cater their campaigns to the populous states at the expense of the rest of the country.

The idea of five or six regional primaries has also been floated before, which would alleviate some of the problems of the current system.

[PassingFair]

3. Bill Clinton did NOT win the Iowa primary and he went on to win the Presidency...

It is NOT a winner take all.

Don't buy the hype.

[rockybelt]

4. We have to look

At the thinking of today. I have been involved with presidential elections since 1964 and things have changed dramatically since then. I do not always talk from my perspective only. There are always a LOT of people out there that are heavily influenced by what they hear from those that are supposed to be sages. THESE people look at these caucuses and tell themselves that these are the only choices that they have. You and I know that is not the truth. They do not. Therein lies the danger.

I have to go, my dog has to go outside. Sheez!

[tech3149]

5. Is 10% better that 0.1%?

The people participating are committed and informed. They put in the time and energy to research the candidates history and policy goals. Back in the bad old days (not that it's changed much)the candidates were decided by party leadership and that was probably at best a few thousand people. The bad part of Iowa is that the caucus is run by the party. They can take the precinct results and skew them however they like and the rules are set by the party with no legal requirements for process or procedure.

I could live with the caucus process as long as the procedures had some legal liability to maintain transparency and accountability. Most important is public access to individual precinct results at the precinct level that can be compared to the party's final results.

I don't wish to limit voting rights or access to anyone, but I don't feel bad letting 10% make the decision for the other 90% that are too busy watching a Bowl game to get involved.

Is the system controlled? You'd be an idiot to think otherwise. The control started long before the primaries. The coverage of candidates by "news media" and the support by "party leadership" and who can buy the best coverage determine the candidates we chose from.

The best way to get beyond 10% choosing our candidate is to be sure that more than 10% are informed enough to know how important political decisions are.

[rockybelt]

6. I respectfully disagree with you

but letting 10% make the decision for the other 90% is NOT democratic. There must be a change in the way that candidates are selected to be on the ballot. And as you say, is the system controlled.....................? You have put your finger on the problem and lifted it as it had been burned by the touch of the truth. It seems as though you and I both know that uninformed people read, hear ab out the news in Iowa and automatically assume that is what is best for them. You are never going to eliminate those people and unfortunately, they represent the majority of the people. Until there is a real attempt to educate people, or unless people decide to educate themselves, nothing will change. What a shame.

People gradually wake up as real life effects them. Real life is beginning to effect a lot more people as the repulsives try to consolidate all the wealth and exclude everyone else. The problem is that they wake in a stupor and grasp at the first ray of light that they see, then they relax again.
To keep this democracy going, there is no time to relax. there are too many people that want to destroy it and that has northing to do wit Al-qaeda.