What the Hell's a Caucus?
And why should we care about Iowa's?
I was annoyed with myself this morning because I had no idea what a caucus was and why the media was making such a big deal about it.
So I made a feeble attempt (in between taking apart and cleaning the puke off Gigi's car seat) to understand what a caucus was. There's a PDF you can open from this page that has a diagram about the Iowa Caucuses.
It did not help me.
Thankfully, my pal Hitchens wrote an article that not only gives some understanding, but criticizes the Iowa caucuses as "undemocratic."
Much more helpful.
Here was the most useful section for me:
This multi-step political dance is for the Democrats. The Republicans vote in one step by ballot or poll. So it seems the Republican results would be more accurate than the Democrats' results. Which should mean we can't take the whole thing very seriously, right? But should we still care because of the potential of its results affecting national opinion and predicting future outcomes?
Still a bit hazy for me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I was annoyed with myself this morning because I had no idea what a caucus was and why the media was making such a big deal about it.
So I made a feeble attempt (in between taking apart and cleaning the puke off Gigi's car seat) to understand what a caucus was. There's a PDF you can open from this page that has a diagram about the Iowa Caucuses.
It did not help me.
Thankfully, my pal Hitchens wrote an article that not only gives some understanding, but criticizes the Iowa caucuses as "undemocratic."
Much more helpful.
Here was the most useful section for me:
It's only when you read an honest reporter like Dan Balz that you appreciate the depth and extent of the fraud that is being practiced on us all. "In a primary," as he put it, "voters quietly fill out their ballots and leave. In the caucuses, they are required to come and stay for several hours, and there are no secret ballots. In the presence of friends, neighbors and occasionally strangers, Iowa Democrats vote with their feet, by raising their hands and moving to different parts of the room to signify their support for one candidate or another.
This multi-step political dance is for the Democrats. The Republicans vote in one step by ballot or poll. So it seems the Republican results would be more accurate than the Democrats' results. Which should mean we can't take the whole thing very seriously, right? But should we still care because of the potential of its results affecting national opinion and predicting future outcomes?
Still a bit hazy for me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
posted by Anne at 12:19 PM
3 Comments:
I too have spent some time over the past few weeks learning about this caucus crud.
The first problem I found in this whole thing is that Iowa gets so much sway on the real elections, yet they are not the most populous state by far. Why not do California? No offense, but who cares what a small population in Iowa thinks? Once it gets to states like Washington your participation in the primaries really don't matter at all. I don't get it.
The second problem that I have with it is that it's not a democratic process (at least for the Democrats). There's nothing secret and it seems to be built to be a pain. You must stand in an area like sheep and be counted. If your candidate doesn't garner 15% you must either step out or move on. And you need to be there for hours to make this happen.
It's a bunch of crap and it actually is a huge part of helping us determine who the rest of the country will vote on in the general election. This is one process that needs to be put to pasture.
Bullocks.
Interesting! If it is okay with you, may I post a link in my blog to this entry? I recently did a small entry that touched on the caucus (in a completely piggish, non-political way, if I'm being honest).
I found your blog from LynchSeattle, by the way - I like it!
Sure you can link to it, thanks for the compliment!
Post a Comment
<< Home