Tuesday, February 2, 2010

I Remember My First Primary

Holy shit. I bring you the Comment of the Day:

I think that one of the biggest obstacles to reform is not one particular party ,but the simple fact that Iowa votes first in the primaries.
Next, Megan will be shocked -- SHOCKED I say -- to learn that the electoral college has it roots in slavery.

How does someone whose job it is to know things about politics find it SHOCKING NEWSWORTHY ZOMG WHYWASN'TIINFORMED to hear that Iowa gets more attention than other states?

Furthermore, there are about 65 other states in the mid-west which are pretty much giant farms and 1/4 of the food grown in America comes from California. So, what the fuck are you talking about, Walter?


Clever Pseudonym said...

Isn't it New Hampshire that votes first? I seem to recall a professor back in college telling us there's something in their state constitution that requires them to hold the first primary. I can't be arsed to look it up, but I'm not a journalist whose job is to inform you nitwits so neener neener.

M. Bouffant said...

Yes, because Iowa doesn't even vote, they caucus.

Either way, that these two small, rural states manage to have such an effect on the Presidential selection process is inherently anti-democratic. Gee, how does that happen in the freest nation on earth?

Neener yourself.

NutellaonToast said...

Either way, the idea that their primary is the sole reason for farm subsidies is to ignore that farmers are a huge voting bloc in many states.

Clever Pseudonym said...

It just adds to the stupid, NoT.

Anonymous said...

I dunno, this feels like the snobby New York/DC attitude towards "fly-over country" I'd expect from Megan. The problem isn't IOWA (or New Hampshire). Having a long spread out primary season (with a handful of early states) means that most of the candidates have already dropped out before most voters (or caucus goers) even get to weigh in.

Then there's the whole byzantine math in assigning delegates. Delegates per state are not at all proportional to population; nope, not even the skewed proportions seen in the electoral college where at least big states have more votes than smaller states. In the delegate count, there are some states that have more delegates than other states with larger populations. Then you've got superdelegates. And whether a states delegates are assigned winner take all, or in proportion to votes, or some random mixture of the two. And that's just problems with the primary/caucus process, to say nothing of the influence of money and special interests, etc, etc, etc.