Iowa was fifth in voting percentage in 2008. I am proposing that the state with the highest percent of voters should have the first vote in the 2012 caucuses or primaries. We were behind Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine and New Hampshire.
I don't understand why it should alway be Iowa and New Hampshire. If a state wants to be first let them work for it . Start with the highest percent of voters and work down to which state is 50th.
4 Comments
Keith Nichols - Iowa Economy Basher
Keith, am I to assume that you want to further hurt Iowa’s economy by keeping Republicans from coming to our state to spend lots of money here?
Give me a break. We need all the help we can get.
You are just trying to hurt Iowa.
bill-spencer Thu 18 Dec 7:12 PM
he's entitled to his opinion
I happen to dislike the caucus system, even though I enjoy going to my precinct caucus and of course I like Iowa getting all the attention. But it would be more fair to do away with caucuses for the purpose of presidential selection.
desmoinesdem Thu 18 Dec 8:04 PM
It does get money into the state
Yes Will I will agree with you it is good for the economies of Iowa and New Hampshire. But this is a national election. I enjoy getting to see all the candidates. But if we want to have the first vote. We should have to earn it. An increase in turnout generally helps Democrats.
keith-nichols Thu 18 Dec 7:59 PM
I actually liked Yepsen's idea
of having the first state to have a primary be the one that was the closest in the last election (smallest margin of vote, by percentage, between the two major candidates). I haven’t seen the final numbers, but that would mean Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana would go near the beginning of the process.
The advantage is that the party would have a chance to build infrastructure from the precinct level up through all the counties in the swing states.
desmoinesdem Thu 18 Dec 8:03 PM