John Baer | Iowa: It isn't democracy & it makes no sense
EVER BEEN TO IOWA? I have. More than once. I found it flat, cold, dank and depressing. I feel the same way, incidentally, about today's official start of the presidential election process - the complex, overhyped Iowa caucuses.
EVER BEEN TO IOWA?
I have. More than once.
I found it flat, cold, dank and depressing.
I feel the same way, incidentally, about today's official start of the presidential election process - the complex, overhyped Iowa caucuses.
Yuck.
That fewer Iowans than the population of South Philadelphia get to play presidential kingmakers tonight is downright disheartening.
Ditto for next week in New Hampshire.
Two all-white states in no way reflecting the nation shouldn't have such disproportionate say in setting the stage for an important, open-seat election.
This is democracy?
And I'm not talking about dissing the Hawkeye State as some stereotypical home of corn-fed hayseeds (even though it produces a full fifth of the nation's corn, and 88 percent of its land is farms).
Nope.
In fact, as states go, Iowa gets good grades, ranking better than Pennsylvania in several critical areas, according to annual findings of the national, nonprofit Corporation for Enterprise Development.
Iowa's "quality of life," as reflected by measuring air pollution, heart disease and infant mortality, earned an "A" in the CFED's 2007 report card for the states.
Pennsylvania got a "C."
Iowa also did better than our state in employer-provided health insurance, average annual pay growth and poverty rate.
So, I'm not suggesting some eastern elite snub here.
My argument is with the electoral system.
The system in place - which could well decide party nominees by early next month, since 33 states hold primaries or caucuses on or before Feb. 5 - is anti-democratic and structured to stymie competition before most Americans are paying attention.
What has happened so far (staged, scripted "debates" with stultifying formats and too many candidates) is too distant from November's Election Day to engage anyone other than pollsters, consultants and media.
And now that we're ready and set to go, the fact that the kickoffs are in Iowa and New Hampshire even further restricts discussion.
Think candidates running in those two states are talking about issues important to Philadelphia or urban America?
Heard much about education, blight or gun violence?
I've heard a lot about God.
I've seen GOP candidate Mike Huckabee toting a 12-gauge shotgun on an Iowa bird hunt.
I've listened to Democrat John Edwards drawl about building "a strong middle class" while standing up to corporate greed.
And on the basis of such pandering, targeted appeals, a small number of voters tonight will give some campaigns a major boost and maybe others the boot.
And unless the national front-runners fold in the few weeks of this primary season, Pennsylvania, with a primary slated for April 22, again has no say in picking a president.
This despite the fact that there are few states more representative of the nation: large urban centers at either end with a vast rural middle.
The system we have makes no sense.
Primaries should be spaced over three or four months with states grouped regionally and rotated every election cycle.
That would give each section of the nation relevance and give voters and candidates more chance to focus on issues rather than process.
The Electoral College should be scrapped in favor of election by popular vote.
Then maybe allow voting over several days, including a weekend.
Wait, what am I thinking?
Such sensible changes might mean less advantage to professional politicians and perennial insiders who control the current process and benefit from it.
Such sensible changes might invite more than 58 percent of the nation's voting-age public (the '04 election number) to participate in electing a president.
And why would the world's foremost democracy ever want that when it already has an election-year launch such as the Iowa caucuses? *
Send e-mail to baerj@phillynews.com.
For recent columns, go to