Iowa doesn't matter

[quote="flajaThe purpose of the primary system is to nominate the major parties' presidential candidates, not merely to winnow out candidates that cannot win in November.

[/quote]

The purpose of the prmary system is to elect delegates to the party comventions. Candidates are not eliminated in primaries or caucuses. they may decide to drop out based on poor showings, but they could just as well stay in. Maybe you should do a little reading.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html

0 Replies

Swimpy wrote:

[quote="flajaThe purpose of the primary system is to nominate the major parties' presidential candidates, not merely to winnow out candidates that cannot win in November.

The purpose of the prmary system is to elect delegates to the party comventions. Candidates are not eliminated in primaries or caucuses. they may decide to drop out based on poor showings, but they could just as well stay in. Maybe you should do a little reading.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html[/quote]

I have been studying American presidential elections for the last 28 years and have been participating in American presidential elections for the last 20 years, so I am well aware of all of this, you patronizing jackass. You yourself said, "The intent of any caucus or primary is to winnow the field of candidates". Having a candidate drop out of the race because of the results of the primaries and caucuses is the equivalent of having primaries and caucuses winnow candidates and winnowing is the same thing as eliminating.

0 Replies

You know, there is no need for name calling. I apologize for patronizing you, but I did not get any sense that you had such a lengthy background in this material.

0 Replies

Having participated in the U.S. electorial process for 20 years dosent mean you understand the process.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Having participated in the U.S. electorial process for 20 years dosent mean you understand the process.

How so?

0 Replies

flaja, have you been involved in the caucus process yourself?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

flaja, have you been involved in the caucus process yourself?

Florida uses primaries, not caucuses, but I have studied how the Iowa Caucus process works.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
flaja, have you been involved in the caucus process yourself?

Florida uses primaries, not caucuses, but I have studied how the Iowa Caucus process works.

But have you learned anything?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

flaja wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
flaja, have you been involved in the caucus process yourself?

Florida uses primaries, not caucuses, but I have studied how the Iowa Caucus process works.

But have you learned anything?

I've learned that the current Iowa Caucus system is a poor way to select delegates that will nominate a presidential candidate. This is doubly true for the Democrats because of their 15% support threshold.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
flaja wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
flaja, have you been involved in the caucus process yourself?

Florida uses primaries, not caucuses, but I have studied how the Iowa Caucus process works.

But have you learned anything?

I've learned that the current Iowa Caucus system is a poor way to select delegates that will nominate a presidential candidate. This is doubly true for the Democrats because of their 15% support threshold.

You do realize that the 15% threshold is per caucus and not for the entire state. Many caucuses may have only a small group of people there which could mean that any candidate including the top ones could not reach the 15% threshold in a given caucus. With precincts having anywhere from 4-9 delegates the 15% viability is actually close to the numbers needed to get a delegate to begin with. In a precinct with 4 delegates, you would probably need 20% at least to be viable. With 9 delegates the viability could be around 12% but 12% is a hard number to reach unless you have a large group of people at the caucus.

Of course you fail to realize that the Republican have no one way of deciding delegates. They can set a candidate support threshold of 50% if they want to in a given precinct. Certainly in a precinct with 4 delegates the Republicans will have a 25% viability for support threshold to get a delegate.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

You do realize that the 15% threshold is per caucus and not for the entire state.

You can document this? To my knowledge it hasn't been reported in the press.

Quote:

Many caucuses may have only a small group of people there which could mean that any candidate including the top ones could not reach the 15% threshold in a given caucus.

You can document this? Iowans will conduct precinct caucuses this Thursday and if Iowa is anything like Florida each precinct will have roughly the same number of voters to draw from, although not every precinct is likely to have the same percentage of voters turn out. If a caucus has as few as 7 voters it would take 1.05 voters to equal 15% of the total number of voters. Since 1.05 voters is impossible to obtain, a candidate would have to get at least 2 of the 7 votes to have at least 15%.

Quote:

With precincts having anywhere from 4-9 delegates the 15% viability is actually close to the numbers needed to get a delegate to begin with.

You can document that the precincts won't all have the same number of delegates to the county/state convention?

We are not talking about 15% of the delegates to be chosen. We are talking about 15% of the voters that show up in each precinct. Not every voter will become a delegate. Candidates are not trying to win 15% of the delegates to be chosen, but 15% of the voters that show up in any given precinct.

Quote:

In a precinct with 4 delegates, you would probably need 20% at least to be viable. With 9 delegates the viability could be around 12% but 12% is a hard number to reach unless you have a large group of people at the caucus.

A percentage is a percentage regardless of the total quantity in question. 15% of 1 voter is 0.15. Granted, a single voter is counted as one entire voter and is not divided and 1 single voter is not 15% of any possible whole number of voters. 2 out of 7 votes is the lowest number you can have and have 15% be a whole number of voters (28.6% of 7, rounded). But I doubt that any caucus location will have only 7 voters show up. 2 is also 15.4% (rounded) of 13 voters (1 is only 7.7% of 13 while 2 is less than 15% of 14). So if as few as 7 voters show up in a precinct it is possible for a single candidate to get 15% of the vote.

Quote:

Of course you fail to realize that the Republican have no one way of deciding delegates. They can set a candidate support threshold of 50% if they want to in a given precinct. Certainly in a precinct with 4 delegates the Republicans will have a 25% viability for support threshold to get a delegate.

My understanding is that the Democrats have the 15% requirement for all precincts while the Republicans have no threshold requirements at all regardless of the precinct.

0 Replies

Iowa doesn't matter FTW

0 Replies

http://www.iowacaucus.org/iacaucus.html

0 Replies

Swimpy wrote:

http://www.iowacaucus.org/iacaucus.html

"In precincts that elect only 1 delegate they choose the delegate by majority vote and it must be a paper ballot."

A majority is a far greater amount than 15% is, so the Democrat's 15% rule is applicable in every precinct in Iowa. A Democrat candidate must receive at least 15% of the vote in a precinct for his support in the Caucus for that precinct to be recognized.

Furthermore single-delegate precincts are even more reason why the Caucus system is worthless and undemocratic. Suppose three given contiguous precincts (each entitled to 1 delegate) each have 25 voters and Candidate A gets 3 votes in one precinct, 3 votes in another and 3 votes in the third. He wouldn't have the necessary 15% in any one of these precincts, but if the precinct boundaries were drawn so that his 9 supporters are placed in a single 25-voter precinct, he would have 36% of the votes in that precinct. Draw the precincts another way and Candidate A could have 15% in as many as 2 precincts. A candidate could get 15% of the vote in the state as a whole, but because of precincts he may not get a single delegate to any county caucus because his support is so diluted.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Furthermore single-delegate precincts are even more reason why the Caucus system is worthless and undemocratic. Suppose three given contiguous precincts (each entitled to 1 delegate) each have 25 voters and Candidate A gets 3 votes in one precinct, 3 votes in another and 3 votes in the third. He wouldn't have the necessary 15% in any one of these precincts, but if the precinct boundaries were drawn so that his 9 supporters are placed in a single 25-voter precinct, he would have 36% of the votes in that precinct. Draw the precincts another way and Candidate A could have 15% in as many as 2 precincts. A candidate could get 15% of the vote in the state as a whole, but because of precincts he may not get a single delegate to any county caucus because his support is so diluted.

Isn't that true of every system that divides the electorate into districts from the electoral college to local city council races? Why go ape all over Iowa for having precincts when that is a standard feature of US political life?

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

flaja wrote:
Furthermore single-delegate precincts are even more reason why the Caucus system is worthless and undemocratic. Suppose three given contiguous precincts (each entitled to 1 delegate) each have 25 voters and Candidate A gets 3 votes in one precinct, 3 votes in another and 3 votes in the third. He wouldn't have the necessary 15% in any one of these precincts, but if the precinct boundaries were drawn so that his 9 supporters are placed in a single 25-voter precinct, he would have 36% of the votes in that precinct. Draw the precincts another way and Candidate A could have 15% in as many as 2 precincts. A candidate could get 15% of the vote in the state as a whole, but because of precincts he may not get a single delegate to any county caucus because his support is so diluted.

Isn't that true of every system that divides the electorate into districts from the electoral college to local city council races? Why go ape all over Iowa for having precincts when that is a standard feature of US political life?

Standard doesn't make it worthwile. I generally do not support electoral districts when they encourage government to put localized interests over and above the general interests. My local city council has 19 seats. Fourteen of these are elected by districts while 5 are elected on an at-large basis. But 5 people representing the interests of the entire city cannot override 14 people who are hell-bent on making deals and trading votes so they can be re-elected.

0 Replies

The Obama and Huckabee folks are celebrating, but perhaps it is time to think about the title of this thread. Iowa does matter, but it is only the first inning. The game has only started, yet it is already being mentioned on the Obama thread about a Huckabee / Obama race in the general. and they think it will be a cinch with Obama. They probably salivate at the possibility of the mainstream media eating Huckabee alive.

0 Replies

Obama can possibly win the Democratic primary.

Huckabee doesn't really have a chance to win the Republican primary... the Republican elites realize that he will be eaten alive. Either McCain, or Romney will be the Republican nominee.

such a pity since an Obama/Huckabee race would be fun.

0 Replies

[quote="ebrown_psuch a pity since an Obama/Huckabee race would be fun.[/quote]

You got that straight!

0 Replies

ebrown, I actually think Clinton is right, she would be more electable than Obama, so this presents a quandary to the Democratic Party, will they place their bets on Obama now?

0 Replies

Iowa doesn't matter

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know