Should the Iowa caucuses be held first? A new generation has doubts.

Should the Iowa caucuses be held first? A new generation has doubts.
https://news.yahoo.com/should-the-i...eneration-of-iowans-has-doubts-170032650.html

Check this out. If Democrats were confident about Iowa they wouldn't want a change.

The first argument the Democrats make is literally...
"Should Iowa — the sixth-whitest state in the nation — always be the first to vote for the presidential nominee of an increasingly diverse party? Or should other, less homogenous states get a turn?"

Look how race/sex obsessed they are.

I think forms of tradition are important to a national identity and democracy in general.

 

Yeah They read "justice for all" and they think that includes anybody other than white christian straight males over 60.

Good thing we have you to set them straight!

 

It really seems Democrats/neo-communist have it out for Christian white males over 60.

"The 6th whitest state". So dumb.

 

I don't really think it matters. The end result would be the same. Maybe I am wrong but in this cycle, Trump wins!

 

I'm just pointing out that Democrats/neo-communist don't want Iowa to go first because Iowa is the 6th whitest state. Extremely racist.

 

I would think all of the states are whiter being that what? Blacks are 11% of our population?

 

They apparently have a list of states by whiteness.

Iowa is 6th on that list and that is to much whiteness to be the first primary state according to Democrats.

 

What state should be first then in their eyes?

 

Ask them.

All I know is skin pigmentation is heavily considered when they make their choice.

 

let russia vote first, then australia...

 

Gotta have China and Mexico in there too. I bet their not very white.

Do Chinese people count as white or do they get assigned a different color.

 

they're smog white, being communist excuses that...

 

Afaik the first Hawkeye Caulkeye were in 1976 and put an obscure Jimmy Carter on the map. And it made a sparsely populated state of some national political importance every four years.

 

As a poster said above, the Iowa thing started in the 70s. It's not like they go back to the constitution. You know, cause they weren't even a state back then.
Only in the US do we constantly give a random pocket of voters a disproportionate amount of power and think this is a good thing. Not only do they get to be a great determinant in who is going to be a nominee, but they also end up with presidential candidates who have made promises to their state to try to curry votes form them, thus setting policy. I've got nothing against Iowa, but as a no Iowan who has lived in Massachussetts, Rhode Island, New York and California I would like to have a say as well, which I don't get. Why is that even remotely just? (and claiming 'tradition' is not an argument. Imagine invoking tradition, and saying that only one of the original 13 states could hold the first primaries)

 

Why does it matter who goes first?

 

Do em all at the same time? How bout alphabetical order?

I know, lets have an election to see which state goes first every time. We could even have an election to see which state goes first in that election too.

 

while technically it shouldn't (at the end of the day you still count all the votes) you would have to be a flat-earther to claim it did not make a difference. Without arguing about things that are harder to tabulate (such as depressing the vote for a candidate who did not do well in Iowa) and are things of human nature, if something is perceived as being an advantage, it becomes one and that is undeniable: all you have to do is count the amount of visits made to Iowa by candidates and compare them to their visits of states with the same amount of EC votes (Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, and Utah (nevada by the way has a long history of voting for both parties and almost always picking the winner (Hilary and Ford being the exception)) and it becomes clear that Iowa ends up with enormous undue influence.

 

I think you would be really hard pressed to find a system that was less egalitarian.

 

Forms of tradition for tradition's sake are wrong. That said, I would respond to the initial question with a no. All primaries should be held on the same day. However, with that said, the primaries are not a function of government, but of private organizations, i.e. political parties. As such they can select their candidate in any manner they choose on whatever day they choose. They are not even required to hold a primary.

 

Iowa was a big, big thing in 1976. Lately their currency has been declining.

Somebody has to go first. Holy Ukraine our blood brother highly traditional great ally first?

 

blame the party leaders, why eliminate any candidate until every primary is tallied up...
btw, every voter has the right to write in anyone (they dont have to be on the ballot either)...

 

The Democratic Party has always been obsessed with race. They supported:

slavery
Jim Crow
affirmative action/quotas
political correctness

Meanwhile, the Republican Party wanted no part in ever treating our citizens differently because of race.