You see, I
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9940a/9940a97d41e8d1ea9749f3594afb43d1f2e2eacd" alt=""
Then my brain kicked in. There is no way Obama could have gotten so few votes. The press kept talking about “record turnout.” Then I recalled that the Republicans and Democrats play a completely different game. The sensible GOP tells you the vote count, while the Dems have some convoluted formula to express the results in delegate count.
In my investigation, I also noted that there is another very telling difference in the
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/97984/9798493720bec128e8c0146a7a4b615cf8fbfdf6" alt=""
Now, I can go on and on about how publicly declared voting can subject the participants to intimidation and corruption, but go check out the opinions of the founders who put it into the Constitution. They are pretty articulate on the subject.
That is not the only un-American feature of the Iowa caucuses. Consider this. All the caucuses have to take place in a fixed two hours. Hardly enough opportunity for broad participation. There is no provision for absentee balloting, so travelers and all the Iowa troops overseas are disenfranchised. That’s right. The good soldiers, who arguably have the most at stake in terms of the presidential election, have no say in Iowa.
Even with a bumper crop of caucus participants, as was the case this year, the voting base is so small and so unrepresentative of the general population that the grandiose conclusions drawn from the results are mere ethereal hype. The Iowa caucus exists like the wizard in the Emerald City. Behind the big, bellowing voice we hear in the media is a very puny, and deeply flawed, institution. Put another way, Iowa is a very small tail wagging a very large dog.
Oh yeah. I had to sheepishly rescind my letter to the editor least my ignorance be too well publicized. You know, I do everything possible to keep it hidden.
No comments:
Post a Comment