In a few days about 100,000 people will get together in Iowa to elect the next President of the United States. At least I think that's what the caucuses are all about. It's all very confusing. Apparently there are some other states like New Hampshire and South Carolina that have to confirm the Iowa result before it becomes official. American politics is so confusing. None of this stuff is in the Constitution so I can't check the rules.
Anyway, since those few Iowa citizens are going to have such an important role in choosing the new leader of the free world (sic) I thought you might be interested in seeing how one of them is struggling to make up his mind. John Logsdon of Sex, genes & evolution has written about his quandary [Caucus Conundrum: Considering Compelling Candidates]. Why not pay him a visit and help him decide?
6 comments :
It's not that complicated, the presidential candidate who expends the most usually wins.
The presidential primaries have nothing to do with the federal government. There aren't actually any federal elections in the United States; they're all state elections.
Next November, those 50 state elections are all semi-standardized because the constitution forces a specific day and a few other requirements, but they're still state elections governed by state law.
The primaries are not constrained by the constitution at all, and what's more, they are much more partisan affairs than the general elections. Caususes are largely internal party events. Not all states have caususes; some have primaries, according to state law. Parties prefer caususes because the party leaders can exert more control over them, and because primaries are basically party elections, the parties often sue state governments when legislatures enact reforms they don't like. Because of the right of free association guaranteed in the bill of rights, they often win those lawsuits.
This has two effects. First, it makes it difficult for a moderate candidate to get nominated, especially when a party has been recently in power, because the nominee is chosen disproportionately by party activists.
Second, part of the reason you need to be well-financed to run a campaign in the US is you actually have to run in 50 different elections at once, which means you need a good operation who can get the signatures or whatever you need to qualify for each state election. Oh, and figure out the 50 different sets of rules that apply.
Zombie -
I am not sure where you are, but you are sadly misinformed about the "caususes." Here in Minnesota we call them "caucuses."
The Democratic Party candidates with the big finances have been trying to get rid of them precisely because they don't control them. The reason that they are more to the extreme right or left is not because of any exclusion. Anybody can come to a caucus. It is an open system.
Moderates, if they would get off their asses could show up and exert as much authority as the liberals or conservatives. In four years since I went to my first caucus I have watched in frustration as the precincts struggle to get sufficient representation.
Minnesota has both primaries and caucuses. The primaries set the ballot, while the caucuses help determine who the delegates to the various levels of conventions will be. One can't be a delegate to the State or National convention without going through the caucus. Caucuses are also the beginning of the process of shaping the party platform.
Also, candidates don't have to run in fifty elections at once due to the electoral college. They concentrate their efforts in states with close margins as to party preference or likelihood of going either way.
For example, Minnesota had long been ignored by both the Republicans and the Democrats because we have been so solidly democratic in Presidential elections in recent generations. But early polling indicated that it could go either way so we had to put up with both Bush and Kerry making frequent appearances.
I get sick of moderate whining about the activists. Those in power are the ones who bother to show up. Jesse Ventura whined in 2004 about not having anyone to vote for. Trouble is he waited until October, and the Independent Party had been toiling in obscurity because he hadn't bothered himself to be active in any of their activities.
this about sums up my opinion on Iowa.
> In a few days about 100,000 people will get together in Iowa to elect the next President of the United States.
No, it's actually a way to give the pundits somewhat to postulate upon.
Also we can play "spot the buzzword," with momentum from defining moments at photo ops whilst addressing leaning voters as they all say "as President, I will.."
Now there's an idea, they should all be president, elect them all, put them in a room together, and they will doubtless be harmlessly occupied for the next four years in wrangling and disputings. And the pundits will also be happy, think of all the special reports.
(I hope I'm not getting cynical in my old age)
I think of caucuses and primaries as the BCS ranking system of presidential politics. A confusing and irrational process for deciding who are the two top-ranked candidates: namely, the Republican and Democrat nominees. Those two get the privilege of competing in the First Tuesday in November Bowl to see who wins the National Championship, er, presidency.
Post a Comment