Iowa just lost their mojo. They made complete fools of themselves.
1
Death to Iowa Caucuses! Long live national primaries!
3
Of COURSE it's the last time IOWA will go first, or it's one of the last times... just as it is the LAST TIME or ONE OF THE LAST TIMES the country will elect a DISHONEST, ANGRY, CORRUPT, OLD, WHITE MAN president... both as they should be... NEITHER are REMOTELY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE POPULATION!
1
Of Course it's the last year--Wednesday afternoon and still at 71%--Jesus Mule Delivery would be faster
1
Even beyond the galling incompetence on display this week, Iowa always going first is racist, undemocratic and utterly ridiculous.
Unlike the Electoral College, we can easily fix this insult to democracy before 2024. And, I suspect, we will.
#Time's Up Iowa.
3
Iowa succeeded in making us look like a banana republic-something Trump has been trying to do for three years! This election is for the Dems to lose and they sure are trying hard to do so! I despair for our Republic!!
1
The video that night reminded me of the hee haw scene in Hoosiers where the townsfolk assemble on a referendum re the basketball coach. Actually that went more smoothly!
Blame the Russians. Blame whomever. Blame Mickey Mouse.
It’s tragically pathetic that our election process is as evolved as the torch and pitchfork scene in Shrek...
4
This strung out primary system is ridiculous. Early states have way too much influence. Group the states into four groups that take turns voting first. Vote on four consecutive weeks. If no one has 50%, then hold a run-off between the top two.
1
Democrats should keep Iowa's first status. Despite their whiteness, they are still Democrats. They picked Obama before anyone knew a black man could win the presidency. Moving the first contest to a non-swing state will hurt the Democratic Party in picking a national winner.
@Andy
Thanks for the different point of view. You might be right but I would like to experiment with the process just once.
Yes. Iowa will never go first again.
Also, the DNC will ban caucus formats.
By 2024 a state not 89% white will bat leadoff for the Democrats. Basically, with the setup we now have, two small states full of white liberals are the gatekeepers.
That dog ain't gonna hunt much longer.
2
It has better be the last time that Iowa “goes first”, and they had better get rid of that silly caucus.
2
Please dems, quit shooting yourselves in the foot- push Iowa and its backwards system and white rural demographic to the bottom of the pile- it should be given little influence over the selection of dem candidates for president.
2
Such a "Great Democracy". It is a joke, and NOT a democracy. How can the primary AND general elections be determined by a handful of hayseeds? CMon!!! The State if the Union is LAME
IMHO the first states should be diverse and represent all who believe in the Democratic party’s principles. Including people of color and the queer community.
1
@Helen Wheels
I forgot to mention that blue collar whites and blacks should also be a big part of the state.
One day, one vote.
1
Can't happen soon enough.
2
I’m sorry! I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I’m just about at the breaking point. If we cannot even find a way for all people in all states to have a say in who we end up nominating then we are hopelessly lost. Sort of like the lady in Iowa this am who wanted her ballot back since she found out that oh my goodness I voted for someone who is in a gay marriage. Our leaders are like parents leading small children. The whole idea of how we can run the country we all love seems as just a forgotten issue. It is at once sad and so enormously stupid. I’m so close to done!
2
This feels like cancel culture rearing is unwelcome, ugly head. Yes, it was a mess. Yes, they should have tested the app more. Yes, it was completely mishandled. BUT, lets learn from this whole situation on what not to do as we find effective ways to make counting votes more simple and efficient.
1
That would be a
wise decision. The present
system is broken. A more
representative first primary
makes sense.
The Iowa process is ripe for corruption and inaccuracy, as we have seen time and time again. Participants in the caucuses also do not represent the rest of the country, and definitely not the demographic breakdown of the Democratic party.
Why Democrats should spend millions trying to win a red state is a mystery to me. Time to move to either same day primaries or a a state more representative of the demographics and sensibilities of the rest of the country.
2
Does anyone understand why the results from Iowa are so slow? From my vantage point, the individual caucus results were known by about 8:30 PM CST on Monday. From that point, it's just a matter of transmitting these individual caucus numbers to a central spot and the having someone do some simple arithmetic. According to CNN, in 2016 this was accomplished for about 90% of the results within a five hour period following caucus end at 8:00-ish PM.
OK, so some confusion reigned for the first twelve-fifteen hours--hence the delay, but it isn't clear to me at all why the results couldn't follow "quickly" after the problem was identified.
I get that they are reporting more numbers to the public, but they aren't actually any doing more "work" than was needed in the past to get total numbers and then apportion delegates.
Am I missing something?
1
No, Democrats as a whole are not "hopelessly disorganized, unable to mount a credible challenge to the president or to govern."
That is true of the Democrats in Iowa responsible for this dumpster fire, but it is a hasty generalization to paint all Democrats with the brush of incompetence.
What is obviously appropriate is to stop putting Iowa's failed system in the spotlight. To continue to bestow this unwarranted power on Iowa, after this unmitigated disaster, is to illustrate that "the establishment" cares more about itself than the facts.
Anti-establishment resentment and furor is one cause of the Trump debacle. Can we please enforce this necessary change to show that the Democrats, unlike the Trump sycophants, do learn from their mistakes?
2
I never understood why a few thousand people in Iowa get to exert so much influence. Their caucus process is exclusionary, labyrinthine, and, frankly, ridiculous. Everyone gets to see your vote; your boss, your neighbor know whom you choose. And Iowa is mostly white, rural, conservative, and older. An extremely non-representative state. Add to that the recent debacle and it’s clear that Iowa is not the place to have a first-in-the-nation primary.
Why don’t you concentrate on why half the country’s eligible voters don’t bother to vote.
Make it mandatory like Australia .
When half the country Doesn’t bother to vote , the last thing that comes to mine is changing Iowa from first to whatever. There is as much bigger more serous problem here.
Please move Iowa from first.
For such a small state to get such focus is crazy.
As a volunteer phone bank caller, I know we were driving Iowa Democrats crazy by the end.
I believe I even polled a couple of Holsteins and Jerseys by the end.
Marked them as different language as required.
If Trump decides to run unopposed in 2024, we probably won't need to worry about the Iowa caucuses.
It doesn’t really matter.
The way we’re going in 2024 them minimum requirement to enter the Democratic race will be personal wealth of 10 billion or more. Of course, we’ll make exceptions for celebrities like Oprah or First Ladies like Michelle and the first official trillionaire that pledges to keep the status quo (war and predatory capitalism) going will be given the nomination without contest and will be exempted from taxes for life.
Instead of the too difficult to mount caucuses, primaries and debates Amazon and Netflix will simply create suspenseful TV series to keep the American Herd entertained and under the illusion that they have any say in the political process.
Long Live and All Praise the Duopoly!
1
Why is the Iowa Caucus so important? Because people outside of Iowa have decided it is. The solution is simple: if you don’t think Iowa should be so influential, don’t let the results of the Iowa Caucus influence your support. No one is forcing you to care.
Frankly, if you’re not an Iowan, the process they use to select their small pool of delegates isn’t really your business.
1
The first states should be those with a significantly diverse population of minorities such as people of color and those who identify with the LGBTQ community, but also include blue collar whites and blacks and union members.
I think it is a mistake to ignore whites who have been disenfranchised, even if minority groups have been discounted and ignored for decades longer.
We need to reclaim blue collar workers of all colors and address their grievances big time. Take them away from Trump.
1
Not only is Iowa not representative of the nation as a whole, the caucuses are not representative of the electorate in Iowa. Anyone with work, school, family or other commitments on a weeknight and cannot spare a few hours to caucus is excluded. So is anyone who is out of town, including Iowa residents serving in the military. And let's not forget having to argue with neighbors and not give in to peer and social pressures. Finally, there are often some hard-core, strident followers of one candidate who will not compromise or support other candidates, defeating the only remaining supposed purpose of having a caucus: having people make choices after informed discussions with neighbors.
Time to do away with this anachronism called the Iowa caucus. Time to roll the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina and New Hampshire primaries into Super Tuesday to give us a better indication of who are the true leading candidates with national appeal.
2
Taking away the personal attention by candidates and time in the spotlight in/of a state like Iowa will have repercussions on the number of Democratic votes in the general. That's a certainty. We can't afford to lose support in swing states, so why risk it?
Moreover, whereas it's possible for little known candidates to gain some momentum early now, bigger states can only be won by a combination of media attention and mass marketing i.e. advertising. When big states immediately go first, it will overwhelmingly favor big brand names like Bloomberg and Sanders who have financial firepower and name recognition off the bat.
I'm increasingly disappointed by the shortsightedness of how the Democratic party is run, by their complete refusal to even consider sailing a more progressive course even in the light of evidence that it might be a viable strategy and last time's failure, and by their management of the nomination process which includes amateurism (Iowa) and changing the rules during the game (debate rules to include Bloomberg). This was a bad start and I hope it gives some pause to the people calling the shots in the Democratic party but I'm not holding my breath.
1
It is extremely important that Iowa's loss should not become New Hampshire's gain... New Hampshire is a state that is even smaller and whiter than Iowa, and it doesn't have a legitimate claim to inherit the #1 spot on the calendar. The issue of both states having a privileged status in the nominating process needs to be addressed at once.
2
First in the nation should be the "purplest" state in that election cycle. The result will give the nation the best solution to capturing independents and wavering Republicans, especially in the post-Trump era (if we make it there).
1
There should be no caucuses anywhere. It is a quant idea to gather at someone's house and discuss which candidate you prefer and then attempt to convince others of your views. If you want to continue that, do so, with zero delegates awarded as a result.
The heart of democracy is a secret ballot, where even women don't have to tell their husbands who they support, much less their neighbors.
The party that claims it is for working people, for people who don't have power, cannot have an election practice that excludes people who have to work nights.
4
It’s time to end Iowa’s stranglehold on our democracy. Unbelievable time and money pouring into the state by campaigns to no one’s advantage except Iowans.
1
Along with questions of how [un]representative Iowa is, I think the issue that's bothering me the most is not [just] the failure of the app, but the reporting of the results.
Tt's Wednesday afternoon, and they have still only released 70% of the results!?
There are only 1600 caucus sites, and I just can't understand why they don't have that info. Please make that information public. Don't they have a phone list somewhere? This is a transparency issue, intersecting with the non-representative white Iowa, and every additional moment that 30% of the bigger picture is missing, people are getting more and more frustrated.
It feels like the Democratic party want's to only show us 70% of the bigger picture.
2
Unless we want big money deciding all nominating contests, we have to have a couple of smaller states go first. How about starting with 3-4 smaller to mid-size, geographically diverse states (primaries only, no caucuses), all on the same day (perhaps NV, MS, ME, and yes, IA), followed two weeks later by a group of larger, demographically diverse states (OH, WA, GA, FL), again, all on the same day -- but also throwing in a couple of smaller states (say HI, ID, KS, AR). Do it again three to four weeks later with a mix of 8-10 states, small and large, spread out across the country and including swing states (OR, CO, AZ, MI, PA, WI, NC). After this has winnowed down the field go for a real super Tuesday about three weeks later, which would include all of the biggies (NY, CA, TX, IL) plus every other state.
@Karl Lawson
Why shouldn't the residents of the bigger states - those with the biggest urban areas, most diversity, biggest economies and biggest share of the population - have a say in who is representing us? Why allow small, mostly rural states to eliminate candidates who might be viable nationally (and in urban areas) because they cannot appeal to the white, older, homogenous, rural, poorer electorates of many of the smaller states?
Big money, like it or not (and I don't), is a fact of life in political elections. Burying our heads in the sand won't change it. Might as well know which candidates can raise or spend enough money to be competitive in multiple states at once (such as on Super Tuesday)? After all, that's what the winning candidate will have to do in the general election.
1
How about a short series of 50 state primaries with each primary reducing the field until it is down to two candidate who then run off for the nomination. That would keep the party national committees from stacking the deck and being bought by the special interests.
As a Democrat in Iowa I'm deeply disappointed with state party leaders. They showed complete incompetence, lack of care, and likely bias in running a very important process. Voters were very engaged, thousands of people volunteered, and all for this. The contract on the app reeks of cronyism and incompetence (even the idea of the app shows incompetence), the ignored warnings show lack of care, the release of partial data suggests bias. Most of Iowa is within a 3-hour drive to Des Moines; there is no excuse for the full results to not be released at this point. They should have access to all the official paper forms filled out in each precinct by now.
Anyone who made decisions leading to this debacle should resign and seek a different line of work.
Also, let's get rid of this outdated, unfair, discriminatory way of selecting a candidate and move to primaries.
7
In order to allow the diversity of American voters to speak at once, why not kickoff our next primary voting season with 5 primaries on the first day.
One each from the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, the West Coast and the Heartland.
This would give equal voice to voters in urban cities, suburbs, manufacturing centers, rural towns and agricultural communities.
Troy Price needs to resign, and Iowa should no longer have the honor of going first. There is really no justification for what happened on Monday, and any number of alternatives would be better for the nation.
/S/ an Iowa voter
2
Remind me again why we can't just have all the states vote at the same time on Super Tuesday?
Also, we should get rid of caucuses in favor of being to mail in a ballot. Spending hours in some converted school gymnasium on a work night playing chicken dropping bingo or whatever other undemocratic archaic game you need to play to win isn't a very sensible way to dole out delegates. How about instead, the guy with the most votes wins?
1
I've always thought New Jersey should go first, if only for the mutual contempt that will develop between the citizenry, candidates and media over a year plus of campaigning.
Didn't California have to give up delegates to move up to Super Tuesday this year?
Designate a date (like Super Tuesday), and decrease delegates for states that go before that. Half as many if you go a week early. Half that if you go a week earlier than that. And so forth and so forth.
New Hampshire will change their law real quick.
My reading of this article suggests that change may not come. Powerful figures in the DNC and beyond are already "wistful" about the Iowa caucus and either opposing change openly or saying "let's think about it," meaning let's not do it. An obvious blemish on Democrats is that they talk about diversity yet embrace Iowa being first despite it being among the least diverse states. Furthermore, after this debacle, some voters, looking for competence, won't feel any longer like they want to embrace the Democrats.
It’s definitely time to change this setup that puts extreme weight on a caucus from a small and non-diverse state. If Iowa wants to be first they should share that position with a few other primaries from different areas, perhaps Florida, and Nevada or similar diverse and swing states. Give us some real data to consider. This farce belongs in the of history books, not the future.
1
Let's have a national primary:
- everyone votes the same day
- preferably with ranked choice voting so that we don't have any issues with similar candidates harming each other
- Condorcet method of deciding the winner (or maybe instant runoff if Condorcet is really unpopular)
1
Say no to Iowa! Set up a national system with reliable tech (not that provided by Shadow, Inc) and reduce the costs of candidates canvassing the vast US.
If the Iowa DNC really wanted to use this app, why not let the national DNC help pay for security verification? Why didn't they check & test the app beforehand? Why didn't they mandate that the Iowa voting focal points had to use it? They could have set up biometric authentication (removing password / login issues) and use 2008 / 2016 local data to test.
Troy Price had many pro-Hillary and anti-Bernie tweets and comments in the 2016 election cycle. Why not have Ernst & Young or some independent agency organize primaries, instead of partial DNC people who are worried that Bernie (or Warren) can win? This reeks of the Georgia gubernational election in 2018 with Stacey Abrams losing to the Secretary of State who oversaw those elections.
So far, it seems that Bernie had the most votes in the 1st round and final alignment, but Mayor Pete will get more delegates? Say what? This mess seems awfully suspicious.
We need a new system for our entire democracy. Regional primaries with rotating system to let all states have a chance to go first makes sense. We also need to revise our Constitution to either get rid of the Senate or make it representative of we the people. The Republicans have destroyed it as an independent institution. It exists for them to block every initiative of an opposing president (Obama) or rubber stamp any proposal illegal or otherwise of their own president (Trump). But nothing will change. The system works for the oligarchs whose wealth and power increases to obscene levels. How can we combat an existential threat like climate change when we can’t even change a primary system hopelessly archaic and undemocratic.
So now we are revisiting the quadrennial question of whether Iowa should go first in the race for the presidency, with its caucus system. Of course, the delay in release of Iowa caucus results is an outrage. But here is a conspiracy theory for you. Maybe the delay is being caused by Democrats who want to change this system.
Think about it. The amount of information that each of the 1600+ precincts in Iowa needs to send to the Democratic Headquarters in Des Moines could fit in a tweet.
What else is there to conclude but that the Iowa caucus results are being deliberately withheld?
This has hurt the candidates who did well, and helped the candidates who did not do well.
How is this for an immediate solution: Have the precinct captains send the results from their precincts to NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, and PBS. These networks could then make their own calculations report the results.
Otherwise, conspiracy theorists will run wild.
Iowans are wonderful people, but no boost to local ad dollars and the corn dog industry is worth this.
I could have physically counted all the votes by myself quicker than its taking the Iowa Democratic machine! Low turnout? Tiny state? Less than a couple of hundred thousand people?
Mike Bloomberg was so right ... blink and you miss the Iowa and NH delegate count - just not important.
Let's have a bunch of 'Super' days, mix up the states each cycle. Run it like a lottery. It is a lottery!
If Trump can treat the State of the Union like a reality TV episode then Democrats should be able to run the primaries like a lottery.
Maybe include a full betting programme?
So much potential to get everyone participating.
The current model is dead.
How about holding the first primary in four states, South, North, West, East, And every election swap out one with a new state.
Save everyone a giant ton of money and just do California first. That would force a number of people to bow out after the first primary. That would allow them to lend their support to whoever is left and that would build coalitions of Democrats, instead of leaving 6-8 people in the field battling it out (and trashing each other along the way) through the first states.
I mean, if your going to make one primary pivotal, have it be the one that represents 1/10th of the population of the US and a much larger percentage of Dem voters.
@DJG yes, way to go, California has a big voice, let’s hear it early.
Some in Iowa have suggested that the app with coding issues was forced on them by the DNC. If that is true, it adds an important wrinkle to the story. And you can bet that will be a big issue if the Iowa shouldn’t go first talk continues—people will be looking for someone to take the blame.
The 1700s are over. All the states should be able to vote simultaneously so that all voters can cast a ballot for any nominee as opposed to the few that are left after the early states have forced the others out.
It’s easy to implement. Just make an app and people will vote on their smart phones. Seriously though, every registered Democrat could get a pin in the mail (snail mail even) and use that to cast a vote on the web. Easy to do and hard to hack.
AND, AND, best of all, with a national vote you could limit the primary to A SINGLE MONTH! How awesome would that be!!
1
The early states have to be small or else they will get Bloomberged. We do not want the campaign to be even more about money than it already is.
The four early states that we have are a decent mix. Each region of the country gets one state, minimizing any home court advantage for any one candidate. It would be more fair if the four states rotated their sequence, but this seems logistically challenging to do and would only invite more bickering.
Iowa could adopt a virtual caucus by applying the same rules they use now to a statewide ranked choice-style ballot filled out at polling stations as if it were a typical election. The tabulation could be a bit slow, but at least it would be predictably slow and not drag on beyond the next day.
These states are mostly ignored by the country 99% of the time, but it seems like some people want to make that 100% if doing so might give them some miniscule perceived advantage. Sometimes, good enough really is good enough.
2
@Alan Where does this idea come from, that the lack of size of state should determine its importance in elections? Are you really arguing that the 10,000 people living in Iowa just HAVE to be first every year, or else it will be unfair to them because they're placed on the same level as everyone else?
Iowa is not representative of the United States, not even close. There is no reason whatsoever that they should go first every election. Either every state should do it at the same time, or the 3-4 states that are earliest should be rotated every year. Sometimes it should be Iowa. But sometimes it should be Texas, or Ohio, or New York. That is fair to everyone.
I seriously don't understand how you people can argue with a straight face that the only way to make our elections fair is for one group to have artificially inflated voting power.
Just look at the Ethanol Tax credit. It's a HUGE boondoggle and a waste of taxpayer money, but no politician will EVER speak against it, because they would never win another primary in Iowa again. Why should the residents of one single small state have the right to enshrine their economic interests into unbreakable national policy, at the expense of EVERYONE ELSE in the country? I'm happy to subsidize farmers who grow things that we actually NEED, like food. By why why should I pay to subsidize a farmer who is growing a cash crop, which he wouldn't even be able to make a profit on without my subsidies?
1
No more caucuses in any state. No more one state goes first. Have two to three large primaries, if you can’t do just one, and be done with it. Least of all places like Iowa which do not in any way represent the industrial, economic and/or social status of the country.
27
@PK ...Iowa should not go first...they are evidently incompetent, and the caucus system is crazy...of course, I'd like to se New Hampshire remain first (because of tradition and seeing all the candidates up close, and, you know, all that money coming into our state every four years), but I like the idea of regional primaries...maybe five or six with the order rotating...
1
@Jim, I understand your tongue-in-cheek comment about needing the money to come into some states, but I don’t see Iowa (Dem Party) reciprocating by showing any sense of responsibility and seriousness about how the caucus is conducted (with issues almost every year). Looks like they are playing internal politics within the Iowa Dem Party to see who makes out most from this sham of a process. With our very democracy in balance this time and with so much time to get it right, they still failed. I am also surprised to see that the DNC didn’t lean in early and strongly enough to take charge after this disaster and set a solid recovery plan and execute a good PR strategy to ensure confidence in the final results.
1
While I agree Iowa may not be the best state or have the best history of competency, but think strongly towards the need to have a battle ground that candidates without huge pockets could enter. Who’s to say if Obama had to campaign across a state of 10 million instead of 3 if could have had the success he did. There’s an element of uncertainty and equality in starting in a small state, despite the big business it may have become.
Is it the most democratic method for the whole country? Probably not. Is it better then a handful of insiders picking the winner however they will. Probably? Hopefully.
5
@Dude sorry, I'd rather have a handful of savvy insiders pick the best candidate than give outsize importance to a non-representative bunch of Iowans
Why should any state go first? Why should we use caucuses at all? No legitimate democratic vote occurs in waves; no legitimate process allows for ordinary voters to be publicly pressured about their choices.
Iowa’s (and New Hampshire’s) time in a privileged position here is an anachronism. It’s well past time to move to a better system and if the DNC refuses to see that they’re going to lose voters.
27
I live in one of the last states to vote, often the decision of the nominee has been determined or at a minimum the field has been drastically winnowed due to voters in other states.
How is this fair or democratic? Why should certain states have undue influence on the selection of our presidential candidates?
I think we should have a national primary day where all states vote. Then have a runoff of the 2 highest vote earners if no one earned more than 50%.
In the meantime I will just wait until the rest of the country decides who my nominee is...
61
@D. Renner Welcome to how we feel in Hawaii. In the general election, we vote several hours after other states have voted and sometimes the election has already been decided when we are going to the polls. We also are a very blue state and no Republican stands a chance of winning, and even if they did, with our low amount of electors, we have virtually no chance of influencing the election outcome. No wonder we have literally the lowest voter turnout rate in the nation! We need to move to a national popular vote!
It’s neither fair nor democratic. Here in west central Florida, we get too much attention during the final phase of an election cycle because we are the swing part of a major swing state.
Do away with caucuses, fixed primary order, the Electoral College, gerrymandering, partisan state control of voting, voter suppression, and overhaul the Senate so it represents the country as a whole, and end the tyrannic hold of small sparse rural Red states.
Time to reintroduce democracy to America.
1
Thing is, other states also decide who the president is. The entire presidential election process in the USA strikes this foreigner as being antithetical to democracy from top to bottom.
Time to admit that caucuses don't work well in the information age. Change to primaries and change the date of Iowa to correspondence with its importance as a voting district.
13
Iowa, for good or for ill, is a time capsule, in its economy, its food, its demographics. What Iowa means to me is typical - I used to fly to Blakesburg, near the WWII Ottumwa Naval Air Station as it was called long ago - the carrier on the prairie - for the Antique Aircraft Association annual fly-in. It's quite charming.
But as a state with power to influence contemporary politics in contemporary America, it's time to move on.
15
Forget who goes first. How about who can accurately count the votes, and who doesn't use those ridiculous computers to do it?
11
@WJBrock This!
All of this is tactical nonsense. Nothing will make much of a difference as long as we have a non-representative plutocracy underlying our "democracy".
Stop kidding yourself that we are a democracy. We are not by any measure. As long as the wealthy and corporations run the show, nothing is going to change.
We are no better than a banana republic.
22
You got that right Mike.
This change is overdue. Iowa is in no way representative of Democratic voters (not is New Hampshire, for that matter), yet it wields outsized influence in a febrile media environment.
23
@Daddy Frank living in a Red state, I see this attitude as Democrats trying to lose despite their growing advantage and give the country over to Republicans.
Move the first contests to California why don't you - the Democrats will never pick a cisgender or Caucasian candidate again purely in the interest of making history...and they'll never win a national vote again either. The Democrats need Iowans as a good barometer for which of their candidates could win over swing states
Absolutely get rid of Iowa as the first in the nation and start using actual voter totals everywhere rather than the completely bogus and arcane system of assigning delegates. This is the 20th year into a new century and we are still using systems designed in the 18th and 19th.
49
Ending this fiasco would be healthier for the candidates, too - no need to be seen pretending to enjoy stuffing fried pork chops on a stick down their throats at the Iowa State Fair.
29
Why does any state have to go first? This is not the 1700's. We should have one day of national primaries, just like election day. Then everyone would have a fair shot of making their preference heard.
47
@Jacqui The problem with a national primary day is it doesn't allow for dark horse candidates (like Mayor Pete) to emerge. It also doesn't force Presidential wannabes to become better candidates through a long, grueling primary season which ultimately makes them better general election candidates.
1
Illinois should go first. No other state is more representative of the country as a whole.
3
@Ted Wouldn't California be more more representative, being 1/10th of the population of the country.
@Ted That would be acceptable to me, as a New Yorker. Illinois is a great cross-section of the broader population of the US.
It's true! You have a dense, diverse urban core around Chicago, and the rest of the state might as well be Kansas. A good balance.
I have an idea for the Democratic Party:
Why not try democracy?
It's a radical idea:
A national primary, everybody voting on the same day, paper ballots only. If nobody gets 50% have a runoff between the top two, two weeks later.
No "superdelegates".
No bonuses for states that voted blue last time.
No closed doors in smokeless rooms.
No computers.
No "Apps".
Keep it unbelievably simple. The American people might like the idea and reward you.
Dan Kravitz
79
@Dan Kravitz
But the primary should cover a weekend, giving more people an opportunity to vote.
1
All states should vote on a Super Tuesday, the first Tuesday in June, and employ ranked voting. This will give us a better picture of what rank and file Dems want. Then negotiate at the Convention.
Like most Dems, I am so sick of this endless election. We started too soon with too many candidates.
Finally, please, stop the infighting and stick to the issues: health care, fair wages and taxation, campaign reform, the environment. Get back to kitchen table issues. And pound in what we have lost under this grafting administration.
44
Need more convincing than this fiasco?
8
@steve boston area Better than the 2017 Oscars ...
Focusing on whether or not Iowa should go first is a distraction from the critical issue: the technological incompetence of the Democratic party. If the problem isn’t addressed immediately, nothing else will matter.
5
We should certainly hope so! I've been racking my brains to see a silver lining in this debacle, and only late last night did I finally realize that yes, maybe there IS a silver lining after all: maybe this will be the final nail in the coffin of Iowa's outsized and anachronistic roll in US party politics. Iowa has never been in any way representative of the US electorate generally, and the notion that how one fare's in this unrepresentative state should have ANYthing to do with a candidate's further prospects is absurd.
We need to replace our current highly undemocratic and slipshod process with one which is genuinely democratic and inclusive, and which brings in as many voices and constituencies as possible, with particular attention to historically marginalized and disenfranchised people of all races, ethnicities, genders, classes, etc.
15
It better be the last year of Iowa first. Is it not prudent to identify the most key states for the general and let them go first in the primary every four years? We should have let the states Hilary lost go first... Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc.
12
It's pretty selfish of New Hampshire to somehow insist on having the first primary, for what seems to be no good reason. If New Hampshire decides to play chicken and move its primary before January 1, the DNC should enact rules saying that nobody who campaigns in New Hampshire is eligible for debates.
8
Establish a set schedule for the primaries; then modify each cycle by making the states which were most competitive in the previous election, come first. I want to know how a candidate will fare in Michigan. Iowa went 50-40 Trump in the last election.
3
Goodbye Iowa! Let’s start in Nevada and Georgia or Florida. We need to get some Union voters and nonwhite voters early in our decision making. I am old and white but even I know this is unfair and needs to end now.
51
@Kate. No caucus states. It fundamentally discriminates against the elderly, the disabled, blue collar workers, single mothers, people with young families among others.
It is also an affront to basic privacy to be forced to declare publicly who you are supporting.
If a state insists on a caucus, they should not have a choice position in the primaries.
6
Here here. I also vote for Georgia to go first next time. Though, I would like to see FITN rotated randomly every four years (states should be allowed to take themselves out of the running if they don’t wish to go first).
If there were any fairness in the system, both parties would adopt a rotating schedule for primaries - for example, 5 states a week for 10 weeks starting in February and ending in mid-April. (another example would be 7 states every other week for 14 weeks (one week would have 8 states)). This way over the course of successive presidencies every state would have the opportunity to be "first".
Moreover, each week would be comprised of states spread across the country, so you wouldn't have (for example in the republican primary) 75% of the south voting in the first third of the primary. Donald Trump would never have made it to the general election if moderate republican states were proportionally represented in the early primaries (and we wouldn't be in this mess).
This obsession with Iowa and New Hampshire is not only elitist, it's unhealthy for our election cycles. Both parties must adopt a rotating schedule for 2024. States who do not want to "fall in line" will quickly do so when they realize that being seated at the national convention will be contingent on their embracing the new standard.
62