After extolling to Elsie the other day about how I try to stay away from politics on this blog, I just have to post about the Iowa Caucus-New Hampshire Primary silliness that happens every four years. Granted, once they're over, I forget about 'em until the next national election; then I get steamed up all over again.Iowa? New Hampshire? What? Here are two states that don't have (m)any people in them, and yet, candidates and the media fall all over themselves trying to get a handful of folks to commit one way or another. By the time we emerge from New Hampshire, the field of candidates has been culled, winners declared, money committed - all on the say-so of a couple a hundred thousand people. Shoot, there are that many people sitting on any given block or two of Manhattan.
But do folks in - oh, I don't know, pick a metropolitan area - Boston, Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, St. Louis, or San Diego get to put in their 2-cents' worth on who the nominees will be? Not until later in the game, and by then there ain't much of a choice. Is it just me, or does the tail seem to be wagging the dog, here?
With all due respect to the fine upstanding folks in Iowa and New Hampshire, it's time to move over and let other regions get first crack at winnowing the presidential candidate field. I no longer buy the rationale of rural folk making major political decisions for the other 90% of the country. (Same goes for the antiquated excuses for the Electoral College.)
Is anyone out there brave enough to change this absurd system?
1 comment:
Phew! I was going to write an "Isn't the American electoral system completely mental" post yesterday, but I scrapped it, because (a) it's been proven logically impossible to come up with a foolproof voting system anyway, and (b) I didn't want to get into any arguments with Americans!
So, thanks for that! I feel a little happier now.
Post a Comment