Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Iowa Can No Longer Be 1st to Vote

Normal
(0)
Difficulty: 0

Let's talk about Iowa.

We still, as of this recording, don't have final results from the Iowa caucus, the first

in the nation primary, which took place on Monday night.

It is time now to just very clearly say with no ifs, ands and buts.

No caveats, no restrictions whatsoever.

Iowa can't get the privilege of being the first to vote in primary elections anymore,

period.

Full stop.

Now, there are a whole bunch of reasons for this and most of the reasons why Iowa actually

shouldn't be the first to vote, have nothing to do with the fiasco from Monday night.

The benefit of the fiasco from Monday night, if there is one, if there is a silver lining,

is that it's a good opportunity to put back in the spotlight that Iowa should not get

the privilege of being first to vote.

It's nothing personal against Iowa or Iowa.

Iowans are perfectly nice people, uh, the, the ones that I've met, but this is a much

bigger problem that we are dealing with here.

First and foremost, Iowa is not remotely representative of the democratic electorate nor of the country's

demographics in any way.

There's just no factual reason.

There's no empirical case for Iowa getting to be the first to vote when it comes to race

and ethnicity.

It's very obvious.

Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two to vote are 90% white.

The country is 60% white when it comes to economics.

When it comes to education, there is no mathematical or empirical justification for Iowa being

the place where it makes sense to start and going first does carry disproportionate influence

over the eventual subsequent primaries.

There's a good Vox piece from a couple of days ago which reminds us that there was a

37 point swing in the national polls when John Kerry won in Iowa and New Hampshire 16

years ago in the 2004 democratic primary.

Now then we get to the disaster on Monday night, the fiasco Monday night with the app

crashing and the results being delayed and immediate foul play and conspiracy theories

exploding.

It doesn't help Iowa's case and it is another reason for realistically not even having a

single state be the first to vote, but instead having a number of States being the first

to vote.

You could organize this any number of different ways.

You could say, well, we will divide the country into regions.

We'll have the Northeast and the Southeast and we'll have the West coast, whatever, and

we will have one state from each region vote first on the first primary day.

Or we could say if we really are convinced that we want to have one state go first and

one state only, which I don't think makes sense, you could at least rotate the state

or you could pick a different state that is more Def demographically representative of

the country.

Like for example, Illinois is often mentioned because of its racial and ethnic and educational

breakdown, uh, as compared to the country at large, it would be a much better fit.

You could use similar metrics, other good options for which States should go first.

If we're trying to have a state that's representative of the country, you can look at New Jersey,

you could look at New York, you could look at Florida.

It doesn't have to be a blue state.

Remember, it's the democratic primary that we're talking about and this is also a good

time to mention that there is nothing in the constitution about how primaries are supposed

to be run.

A lot of people don't realize that the democratic and the Republican parties, these are not

government entities and primaries are not real elections in a sense.

In a sense they are, but in a sense they are not.

And what I mean by that is that the process and the rules and the parameters for these

primaries are decided on by the parties and the members of the parties.

And of course at the state level.

And we're going to get to that cause that is a factor.

Back in 2016 you could tell a lot of people didn't realize that parties decide how to

run the primaries because people were looking at what the DNC did in terms of how they structured

the debates and how they helped Hillary Clinton as maybe being illegal was not illegal.

This was not a legal issue.

What the DNC did in 2016.

Now you do have state law and state constitutions that make this more complicated.

You have a, for example, uh, lots of States have laws about when the primary is supposed

to happen.

Iowa says that it's caucus must happen eight days before any other state's proceedings.

That's why New Hampshire is eight days after Iowa's caucus.

New Hampshire has a law that says they must be the first primary, which is why Iowa goes

first, but it's a caucus and not a primary, so I don't want to pretend that getting States

to change their laws about this is easy.

It's difficult for sure, but the DNC can push them if they want to.

It's not clear that the DNC wants to change the system that we have so much like the electoral

college.

More broadly, we are dealing with what are effectively outdated and broken systems at

this point.

Even the delegate system needs to be, you could do a national vote in the entire country

on the same day with instant runoff voting at the state level, giving everybody more

equal say and equal influence regardless of where it is that they live.

My preference would be to come up with a way to have more States go first, if not all,

or to rotate who gets to go first?

Why would it be bad for Connecticut Democrats or Washington state Democrats to go first

every once in a while?

It wouldn't be unless you want to perpetuate the DNCs stranglehold, an influence over the

way that this is run.

That being said, this will not solve if you have a different state, go first.

That state still has disproportionate power and influence and makes a bigger impact and

that is ultimately something that the DNC wants because it makes the primary easier

to control.

Uh, also just as a, as a Coda, the first primary shouldn't be a caucus and in fact, I would

support getting rid of caucuses altogether, period.

And any process that involves coin flips and requires hours of participation is outdated.

I won't call it bad, it's just not realistically fine tuned and a good process in 2020 change

my mind.

I want to hear from you.

I'm on Twitter at the Pacman.

Follow me there.

We'll take a quick break and be back right after this

The Description of Iowa Can No Longer Be 1st to Vote