NationStates Jolt Archive

As a Canadian US politics are extremely confusing to me, but I was browsing through CNN today and they were talking about whether or not the Iowa caucus is representative of America enough...or something...

anyway, my questions are:

What is the point of the Iowa Caucus?

Why are Iowa and New Hampshire apparently so important?

and

How do these help the Democratic and Republican parties to choose a new leader?

What is the point of the Iowa Caucus?

Why are Iowa and New Hampshire apparently so important?

and

How do these help the Democratic and Republican parties to choose a new leader?

I honostly don't know. I should, but, yeah I'm really not sure. I'm pretty sure the Iowa Caucus shows whos popular but means nothing.

Iowa and New Hampshire are important because they always have these things early.

As for how they choose I think they have different ways.

So Iowa and New Hampshire are just to see who is most popular at the start?

It's another lame-brained idea like the Electoral College. Both states are centristic and have the first caucus and primary in the nation respectively. It's all a mess and we should have one national primary day.

the reason they are important is because they are the first caucases and there are many americans who don't pay attention to politics so when they see that so and so won the election in this state then they want to vote for them because they think they are popular...

yea it's stupid but thats part of it

It's rare to see something written in favour of the US system, but here it goes:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328996&fsrc=RSS
In praise of the primaries

Iowa and New Hampshire perform a vital function

IT IS easy to make fun of Iowa and New Hampshire. These two states, with a combined population of 4.3m mostly white people, will soon kick off the 2008 primary season (see article (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10331499))—and also influence the presidential race out of any possible proportion to their size. Ethanol subsidies for greedy farmers, bleak midwinter meetings in rural diners, humourless men in lumberjack shirts: all come in for their share of ribbing. What an absurd way to choose a president, sneer many non-Americans, perhaps forgetting their own arrangements (the coronation of Gordon Brown as Labour leader and prime minister, without a single vote, springs to mind).

In fact, the primaries system, once again, is working pretty well. There is a basic reason why Americans don't seem seriously interested in challenging the position of the kick-off states: in the end, it doesn't really matter which states start the ball rolling, so long as they are small. For the past four months or so, and now at a hysterical pitch, America's presidential candidates have been forced to campaign for their lives in these unlikely arenas. Slick TV ads alone will not cut it, as they must in bigger states where meeting more than a fraction of a percent of the electorate is an impossibility. Iowa and New Hampshire want their candidates up close and personal.

This imposes immense, and immensely testing, challenges. Money and organisation matter far less than stamina, agility and that most unfakeable of all political attributes, charisma. Anyone deficient will be found out: anyone with the right stuff has a chance to shine. The bruising campaign has already seen Hillary Clinton's star wane, as she has shown herself tetchy and hectoring, and her panicky operatives have been caught playing grubby tricks; Mike Huckabee, an unknown from Arkansas, has soared to recognition on the back of his folksy ability to reach out to evangelical Christians without alienating those of more restrained faith. A field of some 20 hopefuls has already been winnowed down to six or so.

What happens in these two states does not stay there. Thanks to the internet, anyone can scrutinise every aspect of the “retail politics” stage of the American presidential contest as it is played out in Iowa and New Hampshire. Gaffes, slurs, foolish e-mails, the commentaries of local papers and the blogs of humble voters are all available to the global village.

The two earliest states are not just a giant focus group; they are the first leg of a pentathlon—a competition designed to pick the best all-rounder. In their wake come Nevada (disproportionately Hispanic), South Carolina (disproportionately black) and Florida (disproportionately big). Finally, on February 5th, the presumed finale: some 20 states will hold their primaries and caucuses—a contest fought out through television advertising (a function of money-raising skills) and get-out-the-vote operations (a sure test of organisational ability). Just like the athletic pentathlon, you don't have to win the first event (Bill Clinton was beaten in both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992); but it is front-loaded. Momentum counts for a lot.

Run, rabbits, run
That is not to say that the primary system has no flaws. In its nostalgic moments, The Economist wishes the whole thing still started later. In 1968 the New Hampshire primary took place in March. It is not just that the skiing is better then; a later start would stop the primaries from monopolising so much of the previous year's politicking. Ideally, the pentathlon should last longer too—giving more time for retail politics elsewhere. Iowans have their faults, notably their antipathy to farm reform. And, yes, the system can throw up duds as well as Ronald Reagans. That, though, is a feature of all styles of government. Americans will soon make a freer and better-informed choice than citizens in other democracies ever can.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Texas are so important because these states have reserved the right to break away from the united states at any time and become independant countries that is why the usa makes more effort to please these states

As a Canadian US politics are extremely confusing to me, but I was browsing through CNN today and they were talking about whether or not the Iowa caucus is representative of America enough...or something...

anyway, my questions are:

What is the point of the Iowa Caucus?

Why are Iowa and New Hampshire apparently so important?

and

How do these help the Democratic and Republican parties to choose a new leader?

The Iowa Caucus is how the Founding Fathers wanted American democracy to work: a government for, by, and of white, rural Protestants.

Actually, the point of the caucus and primary is to help the parties choose who their candidates will be. As far as I know, it is not connected with the Constitution or any actual law in anyway. In theory, the Democratic and Republican leaderships could just choose someone who they would nominate, but caucuses and primaries are more democratic, and Americans are very pro-democracy.
The Iowa Caucus chooses delegates from the different precincts to send to the state convention, and these delegates say who they're supporting. Technically, I think the delegates don't have to stay loyal to the candidate they said they would, but I've never heard of that happening. Something similar happens in all the states, and then there is a national convention in the summer where the party officially nominates a candidate. The party can still ignore the primaries if it feels like it, but again, I don't think this has ever happened.

The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary are important because they are the first, and so the candidate that wins there has a better shot everywhere else (because voters see him as more winnable).

I don't blame you for being confused. I live in the US, and I had to make up most of the stuff above, just to feign knowledge about my country's political system.

It's rare to see something written in favour of the US system, but here it goes:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328996&fsrc=RSS

The Economist is hardly an acceptable source to comment on anything.

It's another lame-brained idea like the Electoral College. Both states are centristic and have the first caucus and primary in the nation respectively. It's all a mess and we should have one national primary day.
That would make the most sense, then again, this is American politics.

Iowa is where the Children of The Corn took place. *nods knowingly*

Edit: Okay, that was Nebraska. But we mustn't let reality interfere with humor *nod*

The Iowa Caucus is how the Founding Fathers wanted American democracy to work: a government for, by, and of white, rural Protestants.

Aaah... that explains why Bush was voted in twice... white rural voters in Iowa. Go figure.

The Iowa Caucus is how the Founding Fathers wanted American democracy to work: a government for, by, and of white, rural Protestants.
1. Iowa didn't exist when the Founding Fathers did their Founding. It wasn't even a territory.
2. Primaries and caucuses and even political parties didn't exist then either.

The Founding Fathers actually wished for no political parties, instead each Presidential contender stood on their own two feet. The Iowa Caucus is simple first because the state made damn sure it got the first voice in the elections and it's kind of stuck since. New Hampshire Primary has been first since 1977 simply because it moved forward the date over and over. Same with Iowa.

The Economist is hardly an acceptable source to comment on anything.

People who rely on rather lame strawmen in order to dismiss an argument are not much better.


It's rare to see something written in favour of the US system, but here it goes:

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...28996&fsrc=RSS


The main problems with the primary are the following:


Very few people actually vote in them (Wattenberg, pg. 81)**
Those of younger age, more likely to be "Independents," rarely vote in primaries (Wattenberg, pg. 97)
Studies have found that 58% of political ads run during primaries are targeted at people over fifty years of age, only 17% at people under 35. (Wattenberg, pg. 99)
"It is generally recognized that the rise of presidential primaries has moved both parties away from the center as more ideological voters tend to participate." (Wattenberg, pg. 120)


**Martin P. Wattenberg. Where Have All The Voters Gone? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

The above points and data contest the Economist's assertion that "The two earliest states are not just a giant focus group; they are the first leg of a pentathlon—a competition designed to pick the best all-rounder." Indeed, the actual result seems to be that those Independents, presumably including many a centrist who represent the interests of the "best all-rounder," are being excluded because the primary election causes the candidates to focus most sharply on party ideology in order to gain support. The question is not "who would be the best president?" but rather "who fits the Republican or Democratic mold better?" There are many, many, potential and actual voters who cannot answer that question because they are not Democrats or Republicans, so the process pays them no attention.

Besides, while the primaries do serve the function of reducing the field to manageable size (manageable within the context of a two-party system, anyway), such low participation in primaries means that the majority of candidates is being eliminated by the smallest minority of voters. This doesn't seem very democratic.

Returning to the days of back room deals made in a fog of cigar smoke is not the solution, but it seems that American politics could do a lot better.

This imposes immense, and immensely testing, challenges. Money and organisation matter far less than stamina, agility and that most unfakeable of all political attributes, charisma. Anyone deficient will be found out: anyone with the right stuff has a chance to shine.
So it's a good thing to choose candidates based on something as baseless and irrelevant as charisma?

So it's a good thing to choose candidates based on something as baseless and irrelevant as charisma?

The majority of all voters do in many countries.

Look at the 2004 elections in the USA. George W Bush, possibly some of the worst governing ever and John Kerry, one of the most uncharasmatic people to run for president. Bush wins.

1997 UK elections: Tony Blair, charasmatic and something new. The opposition same as before and quite boring. Tony Blair wins.

Charisma and charm plays a very important part in who the electorate vote for.

The majority of all voters do in many countries.

Look at the 2004 elections in the USA. George W Bush, possibly some of the worst governing ever and John Kerry, one of the most uncharasmatic people to run for president. Bush wins.

1997 UK elections: Tony Blair, charasmatic and something new. The opposition same as before and quite boring. Tony Blair wins.

Charisma and charm plays a very important part in who the electorate vote for.

In 97 Labour could have had a corpse as leader and won.

In 97 Labour could have had a corpse as leader and won.

Should have stuck with John Smith then :p

The Economist is hardly an acceptable source to comment on anything.I agree, their editorialism is pathetically biased.

whether or not the Iowa caucus is representative of Americameh

Iowa caucus is representative of Iowa.
NH caucus is representative of NH.
Florida caucus is representative of Florida.

water is wet.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Texas are so important because these states have reserved the right to break away from the united states at any time and become independant countries that is why the usa makes more effort to please these states
Errr... Is that actually true?

meh

Iowa caucus is representative of Iowa.
NH caucus is representative of NH.
Florida caucus is representative of Florida.

water is wet.
Which is no doubt why they have one in every state. Well, that and the candidates will have the time to campaign in every state.
Errr... Is that actually true?

I doubt it very very highly.

I agree, their editorialism is pathetically biased.
That's only a bad thing if it's done sneakily and in secret. The Economist hasn't made a secret of its position ever since it was founded as a pro-free trade paper in 1843.

As it is, the values they are pushing are fairly obvious: transparency, efficiency in government and a position consistent with the mainstream of economic theory. That doesn't make them a bad source of information or arguments, and it doesn't automatically make everything they say wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance

That's only a bad thing if it's done sneakily and in secret. The Economist hasn't made a secret of its position ever since it was founded as a pro-free trade paper in 1843.

As it is, the values they are pushing are fairly obvious: transparency, efficiency in government and a position consistent with the mainstream of economic theory. That doesn't make them a bad source of information or arguments, and it doesn't automatically make everything they say wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance

It's a libertarian garbage magazine that has no clue about reality.

It's a libertarian garbage magazine that has no clue about reality.
I see you have a great interest in keeping this particular discussion below Kindergarten level.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. But if it ever happens to be quoted here, if you have any interest in actually making a point people will listen to you're gonna have to address the point, not the source.

It's a libertarian garbage magazine that has no clue about reality.

Really? I know it's economically conservative, but I wouldn't consider it libertarian. I wouldn't trust the editorials, but I give just as much credit to its articles as I do to The Wall Street Journal's.

Errr... Is that actually true?

Nope. Not even for Texas.

I agree, their editorialism is pathetically biased.

You and Sel crack me up. Ya'll're almost as funny as LG.

Really? I know it's economically conservative, but I wouldn't consider it libertarian. I must -conveniently- agree with Limacon here..

Because I kinda consider myself a Libertarian.. and to be honest I rather not be associated with those conservative editorialists. :D

You and Sel crack me up. Ya'll're almost as funny as LG.didnt you get the memo? I am LG evil twin brother. Darth LG. :D

Why does it seem like Hillary is the least photogenic of all of the Candidates.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses/t1home.clinton.topix.ap.jpg

She looks like she's trying to decide which to eat first and has her eye set on the little girl!

Normally I would want people to grow old naturally, but Mrs. Clinton, Please, Please for all that is Holy, get some Botox!

Why does it seem like Hillary is the least photogenic of all of the Candidates.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses/t1home.clinton.topix.ap.jpg

She looks like she's trying to decide which to eat first and has her eye set on the little girl!

Normally I would want people to grow old naturally, but Mrs. Clinton, Please, Please for all that is Holy, get some Botox!I am no fan of Hillary, but I have one word to describe this post:
childish.

I am no fan of Hillary, but I have one word to describe this post:
childish.

Hey, just telling the truth. People like their President to be pleasing on the eyes, and Hillary isn't easy on the eyes.

Normally I would want people to grow old naturally, but Mrs. Clinton, Please, Please for all that is Holy, get some Botox!

How do you know she isn't already dosed to within a hair of the LD50? :p I agree though: she looks like she's been using Nancy Pelosi's make-up girl.

Hey, just telling the truth. People like their President to be pleasing on the eyes, and Hillary isn't easy on the eyes.so, what candidate is sexy enough for you? :confused:

so, what candidate is sexy enough for you? :confused:

Obama
Edwards
Romney
Huckabee barely passes
Ron Paul
Fred Thompson.

Basically anyone beside Hillary.

Basically anyone beside Hillary.

Amen. And not just because she's fugly. Though she totally is. :p

didnt you get the memo? I am LG evil twin brother. Darth LG. :D

:eek:

Shit!

They are not really too important other than being first.

Why are Iowa and New Hampshire apparently so important?
Because Iowa proves the universe is biased against Dr. Ron Paul!

Yep, the Paulbots have joined the BNP and Ye Middle Englande in taking over the BBC (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4004&edition=1&ttl=20080104102354&#paginator).

Lolz.

first blood, and first opportunity for media to info-tain us with its circus.

pretty much whole story

=^^=
.../\...

This seems important, but probably is just interesting...

There's been much made of the HUGE voter turnout for the Iowa caucuses -- about 220,000 Democrats and about 140,000 Republicans -- compared to the 2004 caucuses. I thought it would be interesting to compare that to overall voter turnout from 2004. Turns out just over 1.5 million Iowans went to the general elections.

Other than the fact that Iowans are underrepresented in caucuses, what does this mean? Is it that only the hard core members of the parties will vote in primary elections? That's always been a reason proposed for why the Democrats can't seem to pull a good national ticket together.

In theory, the Democratic and Republican leaderships could just choose someone who they would nominate, but caucuses and primaries are more democratic, and Americans are very pro-democracy. Actually, Americans are in favour of creating the impression of democracy, while actually concentrating the power in the hands of a few people, a la Electoral College or Conventions. A far more democratic way to do it would be to allow the entire membership of the party to elect a leader at the same time.

Hey, just telling the truth. People like their President to be pleasing on the eyes, and Hillary isn't easy on the eyes.
Riiiiiiiiiight. Because George Bush is "easy on the eyes." Fred Thompson is such a looker. Darth Cheney makes women wet in the pants.

What you meant to say is that heterosexual American men have been taught that they are entitled to look at hot women all the time, and they resent a non-hot woman who makes herself extremely visible.

American women, meanwhile, are expected to be totally okay with having their eyes assaulted by the likes of Guiliani, Huckabee, etc.

Personally, I'd like my president to spend their time actually doing shit instead of getting prettied up for the cameras. If you can't handle a woman in her 50s who looks like she's in her 50s, turn on Spike TV and don't go vote. You'll be happier, and so will the rest of us.

It's another lame-brained idea like the Electoral College. Both states are centristic and have the first caucus and primary in the nation respectively. It's all a mess and we should have one national primary day.

I agree with the one National Primary Day.

One big problem with the idea that presidents should be sexy:

President.
Paris.
Hilton.

I demand that you commit seppuku now. :(

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Texas are so important because these states have reserved the right to break away from the united states at any time and become independant countries that is why the usa makes more effort to please these states

WTF :confused:

Errr... Is that actually true?

No.

One big problem with the idea that presidents should be sexy:

President.
Paris.
Hilton.

I demand that you commit seppuku now. :(

You consider Paris Hilton sexy?

Please tell me I misunderstood your post.

please...

I agree with the one National Primary Day.

And allow only three months to bombard the public with the political adds. Also, hold it three months before the general election. That way the whole thing will be over in six months instead of the two years this election is taking. :mad:

You consider Paris Hilton sexy?

Please tell me I misunderstood your post.

please...

Well, she is more sexy than any of the candidates of either party. :p

Well, she is more sexy than any of the candidates of either party. :p

I dunno if I were gay I'd totally have a crush on Obama. :D

And allow only three months to bombard the public with the political adds. Also, hold it three months before the general election. That way the whole thing will be over in six months instead of the two years this election is taking. :mad:

Hear Hear! Let us start a movement. Maybe we can get national attention.

Why does it seem like Hillary is the least photogenic of all of the Candidates.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses/t1home.clinton.topix.ap.jpg

She looks like she's trying to decide which to eat first and has her eye set on the little girl!

Normally I would want people to grow old naturally, but Mrs. Clinton, Please, Please for all that is Holy, get some Botox!

Riiiiiiiiiight. Because George Bush is "easy on the eyes." Fred Thompson is such a looker. Darth Cheney makes women wet in the pants.

What you meant to say is that heterosexual American men have been taught that they are entitled to look at hot women all the time, and they resent a non-hot woman who makes herself extremely visible.

American women, meanwhile, are expected to be totally okay with having their eyes assaulted by the likes of Guiliani, Huckabee, etc.

Personally, I'd like my president to spend their time actually doing shit instead of getting prettied up for the cameras. If you can't handle a woman in her 50s who looks like she's in her 50s, turn on Spike TV and don't go vote. You'll be happier, and so will the rest of us.

Hillary looks like a man. I saw a pic of Edwards that looked almost exactly like her...

I dunno if I were gay I'd totally have a crush on Obama. :D

This girl in two of my classes does. She's obsessed with him...

Errr... Is that actually true?
Texas was among those states which actually TRIED breaking away, and were clubbed over the head sufficiently that it is recognized they cannot.

Well, she is more sexy than any of the candidates of either party. :p

I disagree.

Other than the fact that Iowans are underrepresented in caucuses, what does this mean? Is it that only the hard core members of the parties will vote in primary elections? That's always been a reason proposed for why the Democrats can't seem to pull a good national ticket together.

Given that 20% of those caucusing in the Democratic primary were independent and 3% were actually Republican, the idea of only the hard core members participating in the primaries might have to be rethought, at least if this trend continues.

13% of the Republican caucus was also independent, but the priorities demonstrate that religious affiliation was a huge priority, suggesting that it was primarily the "religious right" who came out for the Republican caucus.

So it's a good thing to choose candidates based on something as baseless and irrelevant as charisma?

I wouldn't say that charisma is entirely irrelevant. A charismatic person is one who can get people behind him - making charisma pretty much a necessity to be an effective leader. The problem comes in when charisma is all you've got...

"It is generally recognized that the rise of presidential primaries has moved both parties away from the center as more ideological voters tend to participate." (Wattenberg, pg. 120)
I actually think that's a positive feature. This forces successful candidates to form a broad-base of support. Republican candidates race as far to the right as they can to win the nomination, but as soon as they have it they need to race to the centre in order to win the Presidency. If you can't do the first part you never even make it to the election, and if you can't do the second part you lose pretty badly.

I wouldn't say that charisma is entirely irrelevant. A charismatic person is one who can get people behind him - making charisma pretty much a necessity to be an effective leader.
Appalling, but true.

Appalling, but true.

A society without charismatic leaders that relies on party stooges can end up like 1984...

I actually think that's a positive feature. This forces successful candidates to form a broad-base of support. Republican candidates race as far to the right as they can to win the nomination, but as soon as they have it they need to race to the centre in order to win the Presidency.

Perhaps. But even still, to the extent that the primaries exist to choose who the candidates will be in the first place, in that part of the process, potential voters are being excluded. If we are going to select our candidates in a democratic way, this is not the best way to do it. At any rate, the Economist article seemed to assert that the "broad-base" or "center" effect took place during the primaries, and this is clearly false.

Candidates might appeal to the center after the primaries, but those candidates are still being made into candidates by a small minority of ideologues. If a more moderate centrist approach is preferable, surely we should be taking that approach from the very beginning. Just because a candidate can appeal to the more moderate center later doesn't mean they will continue to do so once elected. Especially if the strongly ideological are making them candidates to begin with.

EDIT: Having reviewed the wording of the Economist article, I suppose that when it says "a competition designed to pick the best all-rounder," it is referring to the entire process, not just the primaries. If so, then it's intended meaning is more in line with your own comments. Even so, I think my point still stands; if we want to find the "best all-rounder," we should start doing so from the beginning in order to ensure that we really do get the "best all-rounder."

A society without charismatic leaders that relies on party stooges can end up like 1984...

Big Brother is the definition of charisma. I don't buy into the stoic Wise Philosopher King opposite extreme, mind you, but in 1984 there's a telescreen on every corner for a reason...

EDIT: The problem isn't "charisma" per se, but rather, the problem is a hyperfocus on only one characteristic or consideration to the exclusion of all others. Be that focus on charisma or whatever else.

Perhaps. But even still, to the extent that the primaries exist to choose who the candidates will be in the first place, in that part of the process, potential voters are being excluded. If we are going to select our candidates in a democratic way, this is not the best way to do it.
This raises the question of whether Americans should be permitted to belong to more than one political party at a time. I object both to the government regulating parties quite that much, and to the government needing to know which party I support.

I generally join every party that has a chance to win in any given election so I can have a say in all the candidate selections.

This raises the question of whether Americans should be permitted to belong to more than one political party at a time. I object both to the government regulating parties quite that much, and to the government needing to know which party I support.


The political parties in the United States enjoy a large degree of autonomy in determining their own candidates and the general nature of their organizations. If anything, I expect most people to argue that they aren't regulated enough. I try to avoid "solutions" that involve government regulation if at all possible, but, I'd bet that if left completely alone the parties would do everything in their power to eliminate one's ability to have a say in candidate selection to the greatest extent they could possibly manage.

We have a broken two-party monstrosity of an electoral system exactly because the two major parties can get away with it.


I generally join every party that has a chance to win in any given election so I can have a say in all the candidate selections.

Canada/Alberta must have a very different system then, because as far as I can remember the party affiliation section of my voter registration form said "select one."

Given that 20% of those caucusing in the Democratic primary were independent and 3% were actually Republican, the idea of only the hard core members participating in the primaries might have to be rethought, at least if this trend continues.

13% of the Republican caucus was also independent, but the priorities demonstrate that religious affiliation was a huge priority, suggesting that it was primarily the "religious right" who came out for the Republican caucus.
Maybe it's not the party members, per se, but the hard-core ideologues that participate in primaries. Some ideologies line up Democratic and some line up Republican. Same problem still exists, though. It's a small minority of the voters that are picking candidates.

The political parties in the United States enjoy a large degree of autonomy in determining their own candidates and the general nature of their organizations. If anything, I expect most people to argue that they aren't regulated enough. I try to avoid "solutions" that involve government regulation if at all possible, but, I'd bet that if left completely alone the parties would do everything in their power to eliminate one's ability to have a say in candidate selection to the greatest extent they could possibly manage.
Some, sure, but it would be politically unpopular. Another party could win support by not doing that.
We have a broken two-party monstrosity of an electoral system exactly because the two major parties can get away with it.
Because the two parties are strongly propped up by the establishment. For example:
Canada/Alberta must have a very different system then, because as far as I can remember the party affiliation section of my voter registration form said "select one."
Why does the government need to know your party affiliation at all? Mine doesn't. The candidate selections are run by the parties, paid for by the parties, administered by the parties, and follow the rules established by the parties. The government doesn't have any control over that at all (except in that they make rules about who's allowed to run for office).

For example, in 1987 a new federal party appeared in Canada, and it recognised that candidates were often chosen well before the elections were held (partly because elections are held at the whim of the government, so you have to be prepared), so it lowered the voting age within the party to 16. If you were 16, you were allowed to vote in the candidate selection, because you might be 18 by the time the election actually happened.

But there's nothing stopping be from joining all three major federal political parties and voting in the candidate selection for all three (although one of them does sometimes appoint candidates without asking the members), because they don't talk to each other so they don't know who's a member of what other party.

Maybe it's not the party members, per se, but the hard-core ideologues that participate in primaries. Some ideologies line up Democratic and some line up Republican. Same problem still exists, though. It's a small minority of the voters that are picking candidates.
If I thought the opposing party had a chance to select an unelectable candidate, I'd be tempting to caucus with that party and select that guy so that he'd lose.

There's more to voting than just picking the guy you like.

Maybe it's not the party members, per se, but the hard-core ideologues that participate in primaries. Some ideologies line up Democratic and some line up Republican. Same problem still exists, though. It's a small minority of the voters that are picking candidates.

*shrug* You can't do much about apathy. It's a small number of eligible voters who show up for any given election as well. If the voters would get more involved - at all levels of the process (as they obviously decided to do here), it wouldn't be a problem.

I actually think that's a positive feature. This forces successful candidates to form a broad-base of support. Republican candidates race as far to the right as they can to win the nomination, but as soon as they have it they need to race to the centre in order to win the Presidency. If you can't do the first part you never even make it to the election, and if you can't do the second part you lose pretty badly.

And the dems race far left to get the nomination and once they have it, they race to the center as well. If you can't do the first part, you never even make it to the election and if you can't do the second part, you lose pretty badly.

Nobody's given the real answer to the "What's up with Iowa" question yet, and that answer is "Reality TV". It's a real life drama where real live candidates must vie for the affections of Iowans, a virtuous, wholesome, and all-American group of people (not really - Iowans are just pretty average, so the media can put whatever vague stereotypes the want out there and make them seem to fit.)

A society without charismatic leaders that relies on party stooges can end up like 1984...

A society with charismatic leaders can end up as Hitler's Germany.

A society with charismatic leaders can end up as Hitler's Germany.
Charismatic leaders are effective leaders.

Big Brother is the definition of charisma. I don't buy into the stoic Wise Philosopher King opposite extreme, mind you, but in 1984 there's a telescreen on every corner for a reason...

EDIT: The problem isn't "charisma" per se, but rather, the problem is a hyperfocus on only one characteristic or consideration to the exclusion of all others. Be that focus on charisma or whatever else.

Big Brother was hardly charismatic.

A society with charismatic leaders can end up as Hitler's Germany.

Which was a good Germany except for the whole genocide thing...