Sunday, November 25, 2007

Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire Primary– Why do they get to decide?

I always get confused about caucuses and primaries. It seems like all the network news channels have their opinions on the upcoming Iowa caucus and how the outcome will affect who is nominated.

One network reporter commented that if Hillary wins the Iowa caucus on January 3, it’s over and she’ll go on to win the party nomination, but if anyone else does, it’s still an open contest.

My question is – why does Iowa get to decide? Isn’t it still a little early to be saying whether the nomination is locked up or still a close race? Mind you, I have softened a bit towards Hillary, especially since I can’t stand any of the Republican candidates and don’t really care for most of the Democratic candidates. But still, it seems that voters can get discouraged if they get the impression that once their state holds their caucus or primary, that the whole contest will already be over.

New Hampshire continues to move their primary date earlier and earlier, so they can retain the FIRST spot for presidential primaries. My question again is why do they get to exert so much influence on designating the nominee and why should their choice be more important than other more populous states?

There will also be a huge primary for 20 states scheduled on February 5.

Why can’t we just have ONE primary and caucus day for ALL states? If we can have presidential elections on one day, it would seem to make sense to have the primaries all at once, too.

It’s nice for those states to be first, but should their opinion carry more weight than other states? There’s got to be a better way. If someone can explain the current way to me so I can make more sense of it, I’d appreciate it.

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,

No comments: